DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to submission of application on 11/14/2022. Claims 1-20 are presented
for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/01/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 4, 5, and 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 4 recites “a mathematical model configured and adapted to simulate and predict tree growth”. Claim 5 further narrows this to “at least one of a Larix olgensis growth model, a Korean pine growth model, or a Fraxinus mandshurica growth model.” Claim 19 then independently recites “the tree growth model resource comprising a mathematical model configured and adapted to simulate and predict tree growth, the mathematical model comprising at least one of a Larix olgensis growth model, a Korean pine growth model, or a Fraxinus mandshurica growth model”.
The specification at paragraph [0026] names these three models and states that “the tree growth model can be a mathematical model used to simulate and predict tree growth”. However, the specification does not disclose the actual mathematical equations, parameters, coefficients, variables, boundary conditions or algorithms for any of these three growth models. The specification does not cite any publication that contains the complete mathematical formulations. The only reference to model mechanics is the general description of five sub-modules (respiration, dry matter production, dry matter distribution, leaf area calculation, and photosynthesis) at paragraph [039] and FIG. 5. These describe interactions at a conceptual level without providing governing equations.
The breadth of the claims encompasses complete mathematical growth models for three distinct tree species, yet the specification provides no mathematical details. See MPEP 2164.06(a).
Claim 4 is additionally deficient as it broadly covers any “mathematical model” for tree growth, extending beyond the three names species. The specification provides no guidance for constructing or adapting models for other species.
Claims 11, 12, and 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 11 recites a “model simulation module comprising five sub-modules: a respiration sub-module; a dry matter production sub-module; a dry matter distribution sub-module; a leaf area calculation sub-module; and a photosynthesis sub-module.” Claim 12 furthers defines the interactions among these sub-modules. Claim 19 incorporates identical sub-module limitations.
The specifications at paragraph [0039] names these five sub-modules and describes their interactions in general terms: the sub-modules exchange “organics and energy”, and the respiration sub-modules exchanges “oxygen and water” with the photosynthesis sub-module. FIG.5 provides a block diagram showing these conceptual flows. However, the specification does not disclose:
The mathematical equations governing photosynthesis.
The respiration algorithms.
The dry matter production calculations.
The dry matter distribution rules.
The leaf area calculation methodology.
Each of these sub-modules represent a substantial area of plant physiology and modeling. The specification provides no equations, no parameter values, no algorithmic steps and no references to established implementations. See MPEP 2164.08.
Claims 9, 10, 14, 19, and 20 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 9 recites “a data mapping module configured and adapted to map sensor data into the standard data format” and “a data reconstruction module configured and adapted to reconstruct data from the standard data format into a respective model input format for each mathematical model.” Claim 10 recites “a calculation module configured and adapted to drive the tree growth model resource according to the multiplicity of data resources”. Claim 14 recites method steps of “standardizing”, “mapping”, and “invoking” without defining the procedures. Claim 19 and 20 incorporate equivalent limitations.
The specification at paragraph [0030] provides a high-level example of data mapping: converting soil NPK sensor data into a standard format, without disclosing the actual mapping procedure, data schema, or transformation logic. At paragraph [0031], the specification provides a trivial example of data reconstruction as the sole illustration of the reconstruction module’s operation.
The specification does not provide any algorithm, pseudocode, flowchart, or detailed procedure for:
Mapping heterogeneous sensor data into a standard format.
Reconstructing standard-format data into model-specific input formats.
Driving the tree growth resource through the calculation module.
The single unit-conversion example is insufficient to enable the full scope of data reconstruction across multiple model input formats for different mathematical models. For computer-implemented invention, the specification must disclose the algorithm or procedure that the computer performs. See MPEP 2161.01.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 13 recites “a visual simulation interface configured and adapted to dynamically and visually display the model simulation of the tree growth process”. The specification at paragraph [0033] states that users can “intuitively observe the whole process of the model simulation of the tree growth process” and at paragraph [0011] the specification references visualization results based on simulation data displayed on a host computer. FIG.7 shows static images of trees at different growth stages.
However, the specification does not disclose how to dynamically render or animate tree growth simulations. There is no disclosure of rendering algorithms, animation frameworks, visualization software architecture, 3D modeling approaches, or any other technical detail. See MPEP 2164.01.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites “a mathematical model configured and adapted to simulate and predict tree growth” without limitation to any particular type of model. This encompasses regression models, neural networks, agent-based models, and any other mathematical framework applied to tree growth prediction. The specification only describes one general type at paragraph [0039] and names three species-specific models at paragraph [0026] without providing their formulations. The specification does not demonstrate possession of the genus of all mathematical models for tree growth simulation. See MPEP 2163.05 (I).
Claim 14 (Steps 14b, 14d, and 14e) is 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. Specifically with respect to the “standardizing” steps and the defining a standardizing tree growth model” step.
Claim 14b recites “standardizing the tree species information to form a model resource;”. Step 14d recites “standardizing the environmental data to form a data resource;”. Step 14e recites “defining a standardized tree growth model comprising: a model resource input specification, a data resource input specification, a model output data specification, and a mathematical model”
The specification at paragraph [0038] describes a “data standardizing stage” in general terms, involving standardized description of sensor data and model data interfaces. At paragraph [0043], the specification mentions creating a “description document” and “standardized data packet”. However, the specification does not use the terms “model resource input specification”, “data resource input specification”, or “model output data specification” in the detailed description. These terms appear only in the claims. The specification does not describe what these three distinct specifications comprise, how they differ from each other, or what content they contain. The applicant has not demonstrated possession of these specific claim elements. See MPEP 2163.03(V).
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.
Claim limitations of claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 13, 19, and 20 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The limitations include:
“Data description module” (Claims 1, 9, 19, and 20). The limitation uses “module” and the function of providing a standard data description format (Claim 9) or comprising a standard data format (Claim 20). The specification at paragraph [0029] describes the function of the data description module but does not disclose a specific algorithm or structure for performing this function. The description is itself functional.
“Data mapping module” (Claims 1, 9, 19, and 20). The limitation uses “module” and the function of mapping sensor data into a standard data format. The specification at paragraph [0030] provides one high-level example but does not disclose an algorithm. See MPEP 2181 (II)(B). A general description of a function without an algorithm is insufficient.
“Data description module” (Claims 1, 9, 19, and 20). The limitation uses “module” and the function of reconstructing data from standard format into model input format. The specification at paragraph [0031] provides only a unit conversion example. See Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
“Input module” (Claims 10, and 19). The limitation uses “module” and the function of receiving input. The specification at paragraph [0032] describes interaction with the user to obtain tree species, age, and condition information, which is more functional rather than structural.
“Calculation module” (Claims 10, 11, and 19). The limitation uses “module” and the function of driving the tree growth model resource to produce simulation results. The specification at paragraph [0032] describes acquiring data resources and outputting results but provides no algorithm for how the calculation is performed. This is sufficient corresponding structure for a computer-implemented function.
“Analysis module” (Claims 10 and 19). The limitation uses “module” and the function of analyzing simulation results. The specification at paragraphs [0032], and [0046-0047] provides a deviation-based scoring method, which may constitute a sufficient algorithm for the analysis function. However, the claim broadly recites “analyze the set of simulation results” without being limited to deviation scoring, therefore the full claimed scope is missing corresponding structure.
“Output module” (Claims 10 and 19). The limitation uses “module” and the function of outputting data. The specification at paragraph [0032] describes calling data adapter methods and outputting to display components in functional terms only, without disclosing specific structure or algorithm.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 1 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite.
The limitation “a simulation resource center configured and adapted to exchange data or metadata, or both, with the heterogeneous data adapter” invoke 112(f). the term “simulation resource center” is not a recognized structural term in the art and is coupled with functional language. The specification at paragraph [0026-0027] and FIG.2 describes the resource center as comprising “model resources” and “data resources” organized as items and as being “responsible for the resource storage and management of the whole instrument”. This description is organizational rather than structural. The specification does not clearly define whether the resource center is a database, a file system, a memory partition, a server, or some other structure.
Additionally, the claim language “exchange data or metadata, or both” is indefinite. The specification does not distinguish between “data” and “metadata” in the context of the simulation resource center.
The limitation “the tree growth simulator and the simulation resource center each, respectively, configured and adapted for interactive operation with the other”, the term “interactive operation” is not defined in the specification. The specification at paragraph [0013] stats that the tree growth simulator “selects a tree growth model and corresponding data from the data center to simulate the tree growth process”, suggesting one-directional data retrieval. The specification does not clarify what “interactive operation” entails beyond simple data retrieval, whether it requires bidirectional real time data exchange or some other mode of operation.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “a multi-source data collector comprising sensor input and network input;”. The specification at paragraph [0025], and [0013] describes sensors measuring soil properties and network sources providing meteorological data. However, the terms “sensor input” and “network input” are not clearly distinguished. the specification describes network sensors as one source of meteorological data which are sensors accessed over networks. The claim does not clarify whether a single data source that is both a sensor and network connected falls within one or both categories, rendering the boundary between the two inputs unclear.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite.
Claim 2 recites “a housing configured and adapted to house the multi-source data collector, the heterogeneous data adapter, the simulation resource center, the tree growth simulator, and the simulation results display device;”. The specification describes the physical device at paragraph [0034-0036] and FIG.4, identifying a host computer and a sensor device as two separate types of devices. The host computer comprises a battery, charging interface, network connection device, power switch, speaker, resource store, processor and display. The sensor device comprises a support bar, sensor, and data connection line. The claim requires a single “housing” to contain all five functional components. However, FIG.4 shows the sensor device as a separate physical element connected to the host by a data line, not housed within the same housing. It is unclear how the sensor input portion of the multi-source data collector can be “housed” in the same housing as the host computer when FIG.4 shows the sensors on an external support bar. The claim conflicts with the specification’s own depiction of the physical device.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite.
The claims recites “each respective set of state data comprising a tree height, a stem size, and a crown size, for one or more growth periods.” The term “stem size” is unclear. The specification at paragraph [0046] uses “diameter at breast height (DBH)” and “tree stem size” at paragraph [0077] without clarifying whether “stem size” refers back to DBH, basal diameter, stem cross sectional area or some other dimensional measurement. The inconsistency between the claim term and the specification’s use of a different term renders the claim scope uncertain. See MPEP 2173.05(a).
The claims recite “for one or more growth periods”. The specification does not define “growth period”. The specification at paragraph [0026] refers to “each year of growth” and Table 3 uses annual intervals. However, the claim term “growth period” is broader than a “year” and could encompass a growing season, calendar year, a phenological stage or some other temporal unit. See MPEP 2173.05(a).
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite.
The claims extensively use the phrase “configured and adapted to” followed by functional language. While “configured to” is generally acceptable functional language when the corresponding structure is clear (See MPEP 2111.04), the additional of “adapted to” creates ambiguity. It is unclear whether “configured and adapted to” requires that the component is currently structured to perform the function, or merely that it is capable of being modified to perform the function. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
Claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
Claim 19 is an independent claim that incorporates limitations from across the dependent claim chain of Claims 1-13. Additionally, the extreme length and complexity of Claim 19 compounds the clarity problems. the interaction between these numerous functionally definer elements make the overall claim scope difficult to ascertain with reasonable certainty.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process or mathematical concept without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1 - 13 and 19-20 are directed to a system, which is a machine and a statutory category of invention. Claims 14 - 18 are directed to method, which is a process and it is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1 - 20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Claim 1:
Step 2A, Prong 1: Independent claim 1 recites a judicial exception. Specifically:
The “tree growth simulator” is described in the specification as executing a mathematical tree growth model that simulates biological processes through mathematical equations at paragraphs [0026], [0032], and [0039]. Running a mathematical growth model on input data to produce predicted growth outcomes is a mathematical concept. See MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2)(I).
The “simulation resource center” stores mathematical model resources and data resources used to perform model calculations at specification paragraph [0026]. Organizing and storing mathematical model parameters and input data is a mental process that can be performed with pen and paper.
The “heterogeneous data adapter” comprising “data description modules”, “data mapping module” and “data reconstruction module” performs data standardization, format conversion and unit transformation (See specification paragraphs [0029-0031]. The specifications only concrete example of data reconstruction is converting millimeters to centimeters at paragraph [0031]. Describing data is a common format, mapping raw sensor values into a standard schema, and converting units are mental processes performable by a human with pen and paper. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The “simulation results display device” outputs “analysis, comparison or visualization of the data”. Analyzing and comparing simulation outputs against reference values is a mental evaluation process. The specification confirms that the analysis involves computing deviation values at specification paragraph [0046] and classifying health status based on numerical scoring thresholds.
Together, the claim recites the abstract concept of collecting environmental and tree species data, standardizing and formatting that data, running a mathematical tree growth model, and analyzing the mathematical output. These are mathematical and mental processes.
Step 2A, Prong 2: the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The “multi-source data collector comprising sensor input and network input” is recited at a high level of generality. It requires only some unspecified sensor input and unspecified network input. The specification describes commercial, off the shelf sensors at paragraph [0025] and downloading publicly available meteorological data from databases at paragraph [0042]. This amounts to insignificant extra solution data gathering activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
The “heterogeneous data adapter” performs routine data processing which are generic computer functions. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
The “simulation resource center” stores data and model parameters, which are basic computer functions. See Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The “tree growth simulator” executes a mathematical model on a generic computing platform. The specification at paragraph [0035] describes a general-purpose host computer with a processor, battery, and display.
The “simulation results display device” outputs analysis and visualization through a user interface. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not recite any improvement to computer functionality, any transformation of physical article, or any application of the mathematical result to effect a real-world change. The claim merely collects data, processes it mathematically, and displays the result. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
The “multi-source data collector comprising sensor input and network input” is recited at a high level of generality. It requires only some unspecified sensor input and unspecified network input. The specification describes commercial, off the shelf sensors at paragraph [0025] and downloading publicly available meteorological data from databases at paragraph [0042]. This amounts to insignificant extra solution data gathering activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
The “heterogeneous data adapter” performs routine data processing which are generic computer functions. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
The “simulation resource center” stores data and model parameters, which are basic computer functions. See Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The “tree growth simulator” executes a mathematical model on a generic computing platform. The specification at paragraph [0035] describes a general-purpose host computer with a processor, battery, and display.
The “simulation results display device” outputs analysis and visualization through a user interface. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim does not recite any improvement to computer functionality, any transformation of physical article, or any application of the mathematical result to effect a real-world change. The claim merely collects data, processes it mathematically, and displays the result. This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 2:
Step 1: System (Machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 2 inherits all of the abstract ideas identified in Claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 2 adds three physical elements: a housing, a sensor support bar, and a network connection device.
The housing is a generic enclosure for electronic components. Packaging computing components in a housing is standard device design and does not constitute a particular machine. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
The sensor support bar holds commercially available sensors for measuring soil moisture and mineral content. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The network connection device provides meteorological data. The specification at paragraph [0035] does not specify any specific type.
The physical elements do not transform the abstract data processing claim into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
The housing is a generic enclosure for electronic components. Packaging computing components in a housing is standard device design and does not constitute a particular machine. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
The sensor support bar holds commercially available sensors for measuring soil moisture and mineral content. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The network connection device provides meteorological data. The specification at paragraph [0035] does not specify any specific type.
The physical elements do not transform the abstract data processing claim into a practical application.
Claim 3:
Step 1: System (Machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 3 further defines the content stored in the simulation resource center: a tree growth model resource and a data resource for model calculation. It does not introduce any additional element beyond the abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: Claim 3 specifies that the storage contains a mathematical model resource and associated data does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It narrows what is stored for computation but does not add a meaningful limitation beyond the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 specifies that the storage contains a mathematical model resource and associated data does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It narrows what is stored for computation but does not add a meaningful limitation beyond the abstract idea.
Claim 4:
Step 1: System (Machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 4 explicitly recites “a mathematical model configured and adapted to simulate and predict tree growth”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Step 2A Prong 2: Adding an explicit recitation of a mathematical model does not integrate the abstract into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5:
Step 1: System (Machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 5 recites specific tree species growth models narrows the mathematical concept to particular species but does not change its abstract nature. Furthermore, the specification also does not disclose the actual equations for any of these models. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Step 2A Prong 2: Limiting the mathematical model to specific tree species does not integrate the abstract into a practical application.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6:
Step 1: System (Machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 6 specifies the types of input data for the mathematical model. Defining the specific types that feed into a mathematical calculation further characterizes the abstract idea but does not introduce any element outside the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2: Specifying input data types does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Specifying input data types does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 7:
Step 1: System (Machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 7 specifies reference data used in the mathematical model. Defining the reference data structure is defining the parameters of the mathematical model.
Step 2A Prong 2: Specifying the structure of reference data does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Specifying the structure of reference data does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 8:
Step 1: System (Machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 8 defines a standard data format to link mathematical model resources with data resources, which is data organization. This is a Mental process and relates directly to the mathematical concept. See Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Step 2A Prong 2: Defining a data format does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. It is an organizational step within the abstract data processing workflow.
Step 2B: Defining a data format does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 9:
Step 1: System (Machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 9 recite three modules and thy perform:
Defining a standard data format. (Data organization, Mental process).
Mapping sensor data into that format (Data transformation, Mental process).
Reconstructing data from standard format into model-specific input formats. (Data transformation, Mental process).
Each module performs an operation that falls within mathematical concepts or mental processes.
Step 2A Prong 2: The modules perform routine data processing steps. These do not improve computer technology, apply the idea with a particular machine, or transform a physical article. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: The modules perform routine data processing steps. These do not improve computer technology, apply the idea with a particular machine, or transform a physical article.
Claim 10:
Step 1: System (Machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 10 recites an “Analysis module” which analyzes simulation results. The specification describes this as computing deviation values using a mathematical formula at paragraph [0046], and applying numerical scoring thresholds at Tables 1-2. These are mathematical operations and mental processes.
Step 2A Prong 2: None of the modules introduce a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: None of the modules introduce a practical application. These do not amount to significantly more.
Claim 11:
Step 1: System (Machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 11 recites five sub-modules. Each of the sub-modules represents a mathematical model of a biological process. These sub-modules are mathematical models of natural phenomena. Mathematical models of natural biological processes are mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Additionally, the specification does not provide the actual equations for any sub-module.
Step 2A Prong 2: No additional element beyond the mathematical modeling is introduced.
Step 2B: No additional element beyond the mathematical modeling is introduced.
Claim 12:
Step 1: System (Machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 12 defines data flows between mathematical sub-models.
Step 2A Prong 2: Defining data flow between mathematical sub-models and connecting them to stored parameters does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Defining data flow between mathematical sub-models and connecting them to stored parameters does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These are routine and conventional.
Claim 13:
Step 1: System (Machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 13 recites the user interface for entering simulation parameters is data input, which is a mental process. The analysis and visualization of mathematical model results are mental processes performed on a generic display.
Step 2A Prong 2: User interface for entering parameters and displaying results are generic computer functionalities. They do not improve computer technology.
Step 2B: User interface for entering parameters and displaying results are generic computer functionalities.
Claims 14-18
Step 1: Method (Process).
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 14 recites
“Collecting tree species information comprising tree type and growth characteristics;”. This is data gathering, which can be performed mentally.
“Standardizing the tree species information to form a model resource;”. This is data organizing and formatting data, which is a mental process.
“Collecting environmental data comprising soil data and meteorological data;”. This is data gathering, which can be performed mentally.
“Standardizing the environmental data to form a data resource;”. This is data organizing and formatting data, which is a mental process.
“Defining a standardized tree growth model comprising: a model resource input specification, a data resource input specification, a model output data specification, and a mathematical model configured and adapted to output a simulation result derived from inputs comprising the model resource and the data resource;”. This explicitly recites defining a mathematical model with specified inputs and outputs. This is a mathematical concept and mental process.
“Mapping the model resource into the model resource input specification;”. This is data formatting, which is a mental/mathematical process.
“Mapping the data resource into the data resource input specification;”. This is data formatting, which is a mental/mathematical process.
“Invoking the model to produce the simulation result; and”. This is executing a mathematical model on data to produce a numerical result. This is a mathematical concept.
“Analyzing the simulation result”. This is evaluating mathematical output, which is a mental process.
The method claim as a whole recites a mathematical modeling workflow that falls squarely within the mathematical concepts and mental processes groupings of abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not require any particular machine. No computer, processor, sensor, or hardware is recited in Claim 14. This does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: The additional elements in Claim 14 does not amount to significantly more. Standardizing data, defining mathematical models, mapping data into model inputs, running models and analyzing results are conventional scientific methodology steps that do not add significantly more when performed on a generic computer.
Dependent Claims:
Claim 15 adds sub-steps of inserting a sensor input support bar into soil, reading soil data, connecting a network device, and reading meteorological data. The specifications at paragraph [0025] acknowledges that commercial sensors are used. These additional elements constitute insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity performed using conventional equipment.
Claim 16 adds “displaying the simulation result on a simulation results display device operably connected to the sensor support bar.” Displaying results is post-solution activity using a generic display.
Claim 17 adds “invoking the model to produce the simulation result occurs on a processor operably connected to both the simulation results display device and the sensor support bar”. Running a mathematical model on a processor is using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 18 adds that the steps occur “within the planning area”. This is a limitation on where the method is performed. The abstract mathematical modeling is the same regardless of where the computation physically occurs. See Bilski, 561 U.S at 612.
Claim 19:
Step 1: System (Machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 19 is an independent claim that aggregates the limitations of Claims 1-13 into a single claim. The aggregation of multiple abstract limitations into a single claim does not remove the claim from the abstract idea category.
Step 2A Prong 2: The additional elements in Claim 19, for the same reasons detailed in the analysis of claims 1-13, none of these elements individually or in combination integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: For the same reasons detailed in the analysis of claims 1-13, the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional. The aggregation of conventional elements does not create a non-conventional arrangement that amounts to significantly more.
Claim 20:
Step 1: System (Machine).
Step 2A Prong 1: Claim 20 inherits all abstract ideas from Claim 19 and further defines the three data adapter modules. As analyzed for Claim 9, defining a data format, mapping data into that format, and reconstructing data for model input are data organization and transformation steps are mental processes and mathematical concepts.
Step 2A Prong 2: For the same as Claim 9, defining a data format, mapping data into that format, and reconstructing data for model input are data organization and transformation steps do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: For the same as Claim 9, defining a data format, mapping data into that format, and reconstructing data for model input are data organization and transformation steps do not amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process or mathematical concept without significantly more.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8-12 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of teachings
Rötzer et.al (Process based simulation of tree growth and ecosystem services of urban trees under present and future climate conditions), and
Mcpeek (US-PAT 11181517 B2)
Regarding claim 1, Rötzer discloses,
“A system for predicting the growth of urban landscape trees in an area to be planted by a model simulation of a tree growth process, the system comprising” (See Rötzer abstract and Section 1 paragraph 5, wherein a system using simulation to predict growth of urban landscape trees is disclosed.)
“a multi-source data collector comprising sensor input and network input” (See Rötzer Section 2.3, wherein the multiple sources comprising both sensor input and network input. The climate scenario datasets represent network-sources data obtained from regional climate modeling databases.)
“a heterogeneous data adapter configured and adapted to receive data transmission from the multi-source data collector, the heterogeneous data adapter comprising a data description module, a data mapping module, and a data reconstruction module” (See Rötzer Section 2.1 and Fig.1, wherein Fig 1 discloses eight distinct modules (climate, plant development, water balance, photosynthesis, respiration, allocation, shading and cooling) which then receives heterogeneous inputs ( climate data, soil data, tree dimension data, phenological data). these are then translated into model-compatible parameters to reconstruct derived values (equation 4 and 5). this process constitutes description, mapping and reconstruction of data.)
“a simulation resource center configured and adapted to exchange data or metadata, or both, with the heterogeneous data adapter”, (See Rötzer Section 2.1 and Tables 1 and 2, wherein the simulation resource center in the form of stored species-specific parameters, mathematical equations and model resources that are accessed during growth simulation, along with the use of tabulated species data in Table 1 and Table 2 and stored mathematical functions constitute the exchange of data.)
“a tree growth simulator configured and adapted to exchange data or metadata, or both, with the heterogeneous data adapter, the tree growth simulator and the simulation resource center each, respectively, configured and adapted for interactive operation with the other”, (See Rötzer Section 2.1 and Equations 1-18, wherein the tree growth simulator that interoperates with the model resources, performing photosynthesis-based net primary production computation [eq 9-17], carbon allocation [eq 18], and water balance [eq 1-8], all simulate and predict tree growth.)
“and a simulation results , (See Rötzer Figs 2-8, and tables 3-4, wherein the simulation outputs in the form of graphical figures and tabular analyses that compare and visualize simulated versus measure growth, ecosystem services and future climate scenarios. These constitute an output of analysis, comparison or visualization. Rötzer does not disclose a single hardware housing or device-level architecture, therefore, a second reference, Mcpeek remedies by disclosing a complete, integrated plant monitoring and analysis system.
“display device”, (See Mcpeek Summary of invention, Paragraphs 3, 5, and 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to implement the CityTree model of Rötzer in a hardware system such as the one taught by Mcpeek to form a proper basis for planning options to mitigate urban climate changes in individual cities. (See Rötzer abstract)
Regarding Claim 3, Rötzer and Mcpeek discloses
“The system according to claim 1,” Rötzer further discloses “the simulation resource center comprising a tree growth model resource and a multiplicity of data resources related to model calculation.” (See Rötzer Section 2.1 and Tables 1, 3, Fig.1 and Equations 1-18, wherein, CityTree model stores species-specific parametric data and mathematical resources used during simulation to govern distinct physiological processes. The growth equations, species specific parameters, phenological data, soil characteristic data and stored climate datasets collectively constitute a tree growth model resource and a multiplicity of data resources related to model calculation). In the interest of compact prosecution, also note that Mcpeek also teaches this structure, (See Mcpeek Summary of invention, Paragraph 15.) Therefore, it would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to implement such a multi-resource simulation center in the manner taught by Mcpeek as the multiplicity of stored resources is generally a feature of process-based growth model. (See Rötzer Section 2.4).
Regarding Claim 4, Rötzer and Mcpeek discloses
“The system according to claim 3,” Rötzer further discloses “the tree growth model resource comprising a mathematical model configured and adapted to simulate and predict tree growth.” (See Rötzer Section 2.1, Equations 1-18, and Abstract, wherein mathematical models that simulate and predict tree growth are disclosed)
Regarding Claim 8, Rötzer and Mcpeek discloses
“The system according to claim 3,” Rötzer further discloses “the heterogeneous data adapter comprising a (See Rötzer Fig.1, Section 2.1 and Equation 4, wherein the functional equivalent of a standard data description format establishing inter-operability between data resources and model resources is taught. While showings heterogeneous inputs and formalized data link in the water balance module constituting a standardized format for translating measured dimensional data into model-ready parameters.) however, Rötzer does not teach the terminology “standard data description format" in a software architecture sense, therefore a secondary reference, Mcpeek discloses,
“standard data description format” (See Mcpeek Detailed description of the invention wherein, a software component that formally integrates heterogeneous data sources through a unified data processing architecture constitutes the standard data description. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to combine the inter-operational data linkage implicit in Rötzer 's with Mcpeek, as any multi-source, multi-module simulation system requires common data format to enable modules to exchange data reliably and Mcpeek teaches precisely this approach in the context of an integrated plant monitoring system. (See Rötzer Conclusion).
Regarding Claim 9, Rötzer and Mcpeek discloses
“The system according to claim 4,” Rötzer further discloses, “the heterogeneous data adapter comprising a data description module comprising a standard data format;” (See Rötzer Section 2.1, wherein a standard parametric format in which all inputs are expressed establishing a standardized monthly temporal format for all meteorological inputs which constitutes data description module with standard data format.)
“a data mapping module configured and adapted to map sensor data into the standard data format;” (See Rötzer Section 2.3, wherein a mapping of measured sensor data into the model’s standard parametric format constituting a data mapping operation is disclosed.)
“and a data reconstruction module configured and adapted to reconstruct data from the standard data format into a respective model input format for each mathematical model.” (See Rötzer Equations 3, 4, 5, and 9-10, wherein a reconstruction of standardized data into the specific input format required by each of its eight distinct sub-models constituting data reconstruction module. In the interest of compact prosecution, also note that Mcpeek also teaches a software architecture implementing the same three functional stages by reconstructing synchronized data into the format required by the specific downstream analysis algorithm being applied. (See Mcpeek, Detailed description of the invention).
It would have also been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine to implement the data transformation pipeline of Rötzer and the three-module software architecture taught by Mcpeek to yield heterogeneous data adapter with predictable results. (See Rötzer Section 2.1 Paragraph 17 and Section 2.3).
Regarding Claim 10, Rötzer and Mcpeek discloses
“The system according to claim 9,” Rötzer further discloses “the tree growth simulator comprising: an input module;” (See Rötzer Section 2.1, wherein the simulation begins with defined inputs that are loaded into the model constituting a defined input module that receives the multiplicity of data resources and passes them to the calculation engine constituting an input module.)
“a calculation module configured and adapted to drive the tree growth model resource according to the multiplicity of data resources and to produce a set of simulation results of the tree growth model;” (See Rötzer Section 2.1, wherein a calculation module driven by resources to produce simulation results is disclosed.)
“an analysis module configured and adapted to analyze the set of simulation results of the tree growth model;” (See Rötzer Section 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, and Table 4, wherein a post-simulation analysis step takes place in which simulation results are statistically analyzed and validated.)
“and an output module.” (See Rötzer Figures 2-8, and Tables 3-4, wherein simulation outputs are delivered in the form of figures, tables, and quantitative results constituting an output module delivering analysis, comparison and visualization of simulation results to the end user.)
Regarding Claim 11, Rötzer and Mcpeek discloses
“The system according to claim 10,” Rötzer further discloses, “the calculation module comprising a model simulation module comprising five sub-modules: a respiration sub-module;” (See Rötzer Section 2.1, wherein a respiration module is one of the CityTree's eight core modules.)
“a dry matter production sub-module;” (See Rötzer Section 2.1 and Equation 13, wherein the net primary production (npp) calculation that corresponds directly to dry matter production as it is the direct biological equivalent of net primary production. The organic dry matter accumulated by a plant after respiratory losses are subtracted from gross photosynthesis. the net assimilation AN - A - Rd drives NPP, which is the model's dry matter production output.)
“a dry matter distribution sub-module;” (See Rötzer Section 2.1, wherein an allocation module that distributes produces dry matter among tree compartments that constitutes a dry matter distribution sub-module that allocates produced dry matter to distinct plant compartments.)
“a leaf area calculation sub-module;” (See Rötzer Section 2.1, wherein a dedicated plant development module that calculates leaf area index and total leaf area as core function is disclosed.)
“and a photosynthesis sub-module.” (See Rötzer Section 2.1 and Equations 9-17, wherein a photosynthesis module is one of the eight core modules which includes gross assimilation and carbon fixation efficiency and the rubisco-limited rate jr.)
Regarding Claim 12, Rötzer and Mcpeek discloses
“The system according to claim 11,” Rötzer further discloses, “wherein: the respiration sub-module is configured and adapted to interact with each of the dry matter production sub-module, the dry matter distribution sub-module, the leaf area calculation sub-module, and the photosynthesis sub-module, respectively, by exchanging data representing organics and energy;” (See Rötzer Section 2.1, wherein respiration is coupled to each of the other four sub-modules through the exchange of carbon compounds and energy.)
“the respiration sub-module further configured and adapted to interact with the photosynthesis sub-module by exchanging data representing oxygen and water;” (See Rötzer Section 2.1 and Equations 11-12, wherein the water balance and photosynthesis modules are biochemically linked through stomatal conductivity, which governs both water vapor loss and carbon dioxide uptake for photosynthesis.)
“and each sub-module of the model simulation module is connected with the model entries in the simulation resource center.” (See Rötzer Section 2.1, Tables 1-3, and Equations 1, wherein each of the modules draw upon stored species-dependent adjustment function y for tree age, the allocation module uses species-specific biomass functions, the plant development module uses species-specific polynomial LAI functions and phenological data, and the water balance module uses stored soil parameters all of which constitute inter-module connectivity.)
Regarding Claim 13, Rötzer and Mcpeek discloses
“The system according to claim 10,” Rötzer further discloses, “the simulation results display device comprising: a user input interface, configured and adapted for a user to input one or more simulation parameters, the simulation parameters comprising tree species information of landscape trees, and simulation duration;” (See Rötzer Section 2.1, and 2.4, wherein the citytree model accepts tree species information and simulation time period as required input which constitutes to an user input interface accepting parameters.)
“a simulation data analysis interface configured and adapted to display the final result data after analysis of the simulation results in the form of charts; and a visual simulation interface configured and adapted to dynamically and visually display the model simulation of the tree growth process.”
(See Rötzer Figures 2-8, and Table 4, wherein displaying and analyzing simulation results for user decision-making purposes is disclosed.)
Claim 5 is being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of teachings
Rötzer et.al (Process based simulation of tree growth and ecosystem services of urban trees under present and future climate conditions), and
Mcpeek (US-PAT 11181517 B2), and
Xie et al. (Modeling Height–Diameter Relationships for Mixed-Species Plantations of Fraxinus mandshurica Rupr. and Larix olgensis Henry in Northeastern China)
Regarding Claim 5, Rötzer and Mcpeek discloses
“The system according to claim 4,”. However, Rötzer in view of Mcpeek does not disclose “the mathematical model comprising at least one of a Larix olgensis growth model, a Korean pine growth model, or a Fraxinus mandshurica growth model.” therefore a secondary reference, Xie discloses, “the mathematical model comprising at least one of a Larix olgensis growth model, a Korean pine growth model, or a Fraxinus mandshurica growth model.” (See Xie Abstract, wherein mathematical H-D (height-diameter) models for both Larix olgensis and Fraxinus mandshurica are configured and adapted to simulate and predict plant growth.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement the species-specific models of the teachings of Xie with the simulation taught by Rötzer in view of Mcpeek, as Rötzer and Mcpeek establishes that process based mathematical growth models for specific tree species are the standard tool for urban tree simulation and Xie provides the validated species-specific data for Larix olgensis and Fraxinus mandshurica.
Claims 2, and 6-7 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of teachings
Rötzer et.al (Process based simulation of tree growth and ecosystem services of urban trees under present and future climate conditions), and
Mcpeek (US-PAT 11181517 B2), and
Campbell (US-PUB 20140015679 A1)
Regarding Claim 2, Rötzer and Mcpeek discloses,
“The system according to claim 1,” Rötzer in view of Mcpeek further discloses “comprising: a data acquisition inserted link device comprising: a (See Rötzer Abstract wherein, an integrated tree growth modeling framework comprising data collection, data processing, model simulation and results output components operating as an unified system is disclosed).
“a sensor (See Rötzer Section 2.1 paragraph 1, 2.3 and Tables 1-4, wherein it is disclosed that the need for soil data as required inputs to citytree, confirming that a sensor providing soil data are precisely the inputs the simulation requires.)
“a network connection (See Rötzer Section 2.1 paragraph 3, Equations 1-18 and Tables 1-4, wherein it is disclosed that the meteorological data inclusing temperature and precipitation are essential model inputs and that such data can be obtained from network sources).
However, Rötzer in view of Mcpeek does not disclose “housing”, specifically a single physical housing that encloses and integrates all system components into a portable, field-deployable inserted link device. “support bar”; specifically a physical sensor support bar; “device”, specifically a network connection device integrated into a portable device.
Therefore, a secondary reference, Campbell discloses,
“housing”, (See Campbell Brief summary of the invention [0009], wherein a portable integrated physical housing that encloses data collection and monitoring components into a single deployable unit is disclosed. The entire system comprising the sensor, monitor, display, and communication components is integrated into a single portable housing deployable and retrievable from planting sites).
“support bar” (See Campbell [0005], [0006], [0009], and [0018], wherein a sensor support bar configured to support a multiplicity of sensors in soil to directly collect soil moisture and mineral content data at the planting site is disclosed).
“device” (See Campbell Detailed description of the invention [0018], wherein a sensor support is part of one of the embodiments.) In the interest of compact prosecution, also note that Campbell also teaches that the sensor monitor communicates meteorological and environmental data via network providing the precipitation and temperature data to the network input.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the integrated physical housing architecture taught by Campbell into the simulation tree growth prediction framework of Rötzer in view of Mcpeek. Campbell expresses that the system would enable cost effective, field-deployable tree growth prediction at planting sites before planting occurs. (See Campbell [0008]).
Regarding Claim 6, Rötzer and Mcpeek discloses
“The system according to claim 4,” Rötzer in view of Mcpeek further discloses, “the data resources comprising environmental data; the environmental data comprising (See Section 2.3-2.4 wherein the ambient temperature, humidity and precipitation data constitutes for environmental data as standing data resources within simulation system. The soil texture and type are the parameters “field capacity” and “permanent wilting point” are data representation of soil texture and type (and descriptions such as “sandy loam” and “sandy” are also describing soil texture and type.)
However, Rötzer in view of Mcpeek, does not disclose “soil trace element”, therefore a secondary reference, Campbell discloses, “soil trace element” (See Detailed description of the invention [0018] and [0011], wherein, the soil sensor monitors soil mineral content as a part of the health monitoring system constituting soil data.) In the interest of compact prosecution, also note that Campbell explicitly discloses the measurement and monitorning of soil trace element content as a plant health data resource.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate Campbell’s teaching of available sensor technology for measuring those soil nutrient parameters to incorporate soil trace element content as an additional soil data resource into the simulation tree growth prediction framework of Rötzer in view of Mcpeek to improve prediction accuracy. (See Campbell 0006]).
Regarding Claim 7, Rötzer and Mcpeek discloses,
“The system according to claim 6,” Rötzer further discloses, “the data resources further comprising a respective set of state data for each respective tree species in a multiplicity of tree species; each respective set of state data comprising a tree height, a stem size, and a crown size, for one or more growth periods.” (See Section 2.1 paragraph 2-4, Table 2 and 3, wherein, species-specific state data for each of its four modeled tree species across multiple growth periods with direct precision, Table 2 presents measured mean, minimum, and maximum values of: age, diameter at breast height, height, and crown volume. Crown projection area and crown diameter are additionally used throughout the model, where crown diameter constitutes crown size. The 2000 measured trees for simulation purposes explicitly providing state data organized by growth periods)
Claims 14 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of teachings
Rötzer et.al (Process based simulation of tree growth and ecosystem services of urban trees under present and future climate conditions), and
Nowak (Understanding i-Tree: Summary of Programs and Methods)
Regarding Claim 14, Rötzer discloses,
“A method for predicting the growth of urban landscape trees in a (See Rötzer Section 2.2 and 2.4 and Table 2 and 3, wherein the collection and standardization of tree species information is a foundational step. The classification and averaging process directly constitutes standardizing species information to form a model resource.)
“collecting environmental data comprising soil data and meteorological data;” (See Rötzer Section 2.1, 2.3 and 2.4, wherein collection of both soil and meteorological environmental data is disclosed)
“standardizing the environmental data to form a data resource;” (See Rötzer Section 2.1, wherein the standardization of environmental data is put into a uniform format, where a standardized data resource format is used consistently across all six cities.)
“defining a standardized tree growth model comprising: a model resource input specification, a data resource input specification, a model output data specification, and a mathematical model configured and adapted to output a simulation result derived from inputs comprising the model resource and the data resource;” (See Rötzer Section 2.1, wherein the defined model includes specified inputs and outputs. The teachings constitute the model resource input specification and the data resource input specification. The model output data specification if defined by the ecosystem services and growth parameters that citytree is designed to output.)
“mapping the model resource into the model resource input specification; mapping the data resource into the data resource input specification;” (See Rötzer Section 2.4 and Tables 3, 1 and 3, wherein the mapping of the collected and standardized data into specifications is performed with measured tree data (See table 3) and climate data (See table 1 and 3) to assign as inputs to models defined input slots.)
“invoking the model to produce the simulation result;” (See Rötzer Section 3, wherein the model is explicitly run under both current and future climate scenarios constituting the simulation result.)
“and analyzing the simulation result.” (See Rötzer Section 4.2.1, wherein the explicit formal definition of a simulation result is disclosed along with the comparison of simulation results to find difference in growth of trees based on environmental data.) However, Rötzer does not teach the planning area portion, therefore a secondary reference, Nowak discloses,
“planning area” (See Nowak Page 32, Methods Overview, wherein a method is introduced that can be used to predict plant/tree growth prior to planting them for a specific planning area.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rötzer with Nowak to be able to not only predict growth of already planted trees but also prior to the planting for better understanding.)
Claims 15, 16, 17, and 18 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of teachings
Rötzer et.al (Process based simulation of tree growth and ecosystem services of urban trees under present and future climate conditions), and
Campbell (US-PUB 20140015679 A1), and
Nowak (Understanding i-Tree: Summary of Programs and Methods)
Regarding Claim 15, Rötzer and Nowak discloses,
“The method according to claim 14,” Rötzer further discloses, “wherein the collecting environmental data comprises the following sub-steps: inserting a sensor support bar into an area of soil within the planning area, the (See Section 2.3, wherein the use of in-ground soil sensors and meteorological data collection at its validation sites for both reading of meteorological data from a data source and the use of on-site instruments is disclosed. Also, discuses the use of measured soil parameters at each validation site and the use of sap flow sensors and dendrometers installed on trees to provide model validation data to feed into the simulation.) However, Rötzer does not explicitly disclose a sensor bar as a physical device or reading soil data from multiple sensors, therefore a secondary reference, Campbell discloses,
“the sensor support bar” (See Claim 1, and [0022], wherein reading soil data from multiple sensors supported in the soil is disclosed.)
“reading the soil data from the multiplicity of sensors;” (See [0022], wherein receiving data from multiple sensors to the hub constitutes reading soil data.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the soil sensor support structure of Campbell with the meteorological and soil data collection established by Rötzer as (See Rötzer Section 2.1), CityTree requires both soil and meteorological data as inputs and Campbell provides precisely the physical hardware configuration for collecting such data with inserted sensor support structures.
Regarding Claim 16, Rötzer and Nowak discloses,
“The method according to claim 15, comprising:” Campbell further discloses “displaying the simulation result on a simulation results display device operably connected to the sensor support bar.” (See Detailed description of the invention, [0018], [0019], and [0022], wherein an integrated system in which the soil sensor communicates directly with a monitor/display hub that is physically co-located with the sensor constitutes a display device.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the display capabilities of Campbell’s sensor system with the tree growth simulation display of Rötzer and Nowak, such that simulation results are displayed on a device operably connected to the sensor bar. Rötzer establishes this combination by teaching that simulation output supports planning decisions. The combination would make the usage of the display to understand the data from the sensor bar more user friendly. (See p. 651, abstract)
Regarding Claim 17, Rötzer and Nowak discloses,
“The method according to claim 16,” Rötzer in view of Nowak does not teach “wherein invoking the model to produce the simulation result occurs on a processor operably connected to both the simulation results display device and the sensor support bar.”
Therefore, a secondary reference, Campbell further discloses, “wherein invoking the model to produce the simulation result occurs on a processor operably connected to both the simulation results display device and the sensor support bar.” (See Detailed description of the invention, [0018], and [0028], wherein, a processor that is operably connected to both the sensor and the display monitor constitutes a single processor that is connected to both ends of the data pipeline.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to run the tree growth simulation model on a processor operably connected to both the display device and the sensor support bar in the combined system of Campbell, Rötzer, and Nowak. Nowak establishes that using a connected processor by the teaching that i-Tree programs are designed to process field data and environmental data on computers to generate results. (See Nowak Page 18). Rötzer also establishes that the model requires environmental input data and produces simulation output. This configuration would allow a planner to collect environmental measurements, run the growth simulation, and view the predicted results in a single integrated workflow without returning to a separate workstation, improving the efficiency and practicality of on-site growth suitability assesments. (See Rötzer, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 18, Rötzer, Campbell and Nowak disclose,
“The method according to claim 17, wherein at least the following steps and sub-steps occur within the planning area: collecting environmental data comprising soil data and meteorological data; inserting a sensor support bar into an area of soil within the planning area, the sensor support bar is configured and adapted to support a multiplicity of sensors and provide the soil data; reading the soil data from the multiplicity of sensors; connecting a connection device to a data source, the connection device configured and adapted to provide the meteorological data; and reading the meteorological data from the data source; standardizing the environmental data to form a data resource; mapping the data resource into the data resource input specification; invoking the model to produce the simulation result; and displaying the simulation result on a simulation results display device operably connected to the sensor support bar; and analyzing the simulation result; wherein invoking the model to produce the simulation result occurs on a processor operably connected to both the simulation results display device and the sensor support bar.” Rejected under the same reasoning of above claims 14-17. In the interest of compact prosecution, also note that Campbell discloses the physical in-situ components. (See Campbell, 0009 wherein Campbell establishes that the sensor hardware, the battery-powered processor within the sensor monitor, are physically field-deployed within the planning area. The sensor-processors also perform real-time data processing and status determination at site).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the portable soil sensor system of Campbell with the process-based tree growth simulation of Rötzer and the environmental data processing and forecasting framework of Nowak. This combination would directly address the need in urban forestry for cost effective, accurate, pre-planting suitability assessment, reducing tree mortality, lowering municipal maintenance costs, and improving the success rate of urban planting programs. (See Rötzer Abstract).
Claims 19 and 20 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of teachings
Rötzer et.al (Process based simulation of tree growth and ecosystem services of urban trees under present and future climate conditions), and
Mcpeek (US-PAT 11181517 B2), and
Campbell (US-PUB 20140015679 A1), and
Xie et al. (Modeling Height–Diameter Relationships for Mixed-Species Plantations of Fraxinus mandshurica Rupr. and Larix olgensis Henry in Northeastern China)
Regarding Claim 19, is being rejected under Rötzer in view of Mcpeek, Campbell, and Xie, as being analogous to claims 1-13,
Rötzer further discloses, “A system for predicting the growth of urban landscape trees in an area to be planted by a model simulation of a tree growth process, the system comprising: a multi-source data collector comprising sensor input and network input;” (See Rötzer, Section 2.1, wherein the multiple input data sources constitute a multi-source data collector. The tree dimensions, soil properties, and climate/co2 data constitute sensor and network input as they are sourced from physical sensors and distributed monitoring networks.)
“a heterogeneous data adapter configured and adapted to receive data transmission from the multi-source data collector, the heterogeneous data adapter comprising a data description module, a data mapping module, and a data reconstruction module;” (See Rötzer, Section 2.1 and Fig.1, wherein Fig 1 discloses eight distinct modules (climate, plant development, water balance, photosynthesis, respiration, allocation, shading and cooling) which then receives heterogeneous inputs ( climate data, soil data, tree dimension data, phenological data). These are then translated into model-compatible parameters to reconstruct derived values (equation 4 and 5). this process constitutes description, mapping and reconstruction of data.)
“a simulation resource center configured and adapted to exchange data or metadata, or both, with the heterogeneous data adapter, the simulation resource center comprising a tree growth model resource and a multiplicity of data resources related to model calculation,” (See Rötzer, Section 2.1 and Tables 1, 3, Fig.1 and Equations 1-18, wherein, CityTree model stores species-specific parametric data and mathematical resources used during simulation to govern distinct physiological processes. The growth equations, species specific parameters, phenological data, soil characteristic data and stored climate datasets collectively constitute a tree growth model resource and a multiplicity of data resources related to model calculation). In the interest of compact prosecution, also note that Mcpeek also teaches this structure, (See Mcpeek, Summary of invention, Paragraph 15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include a resource center storing growth models and data resources. Rötzer establishes that CityTree model maintains both model resources and environmental data resources. (See Rötzer Section 2.1 paragraph 1). McPeek also demonstrates maintaining a central repository of both model/analysis resources and environmental data resources. This would make the system more scalable and adaptable to different urban forestry scenarios, allowing municipalities to expand coverage to additional tree species over time by simply adding new model and data entries to the repository rather than redesigning the simulation pipeline. (See McPeek Col 4, 11, and 39-42).
“the tree growth model resource comprising a mathematical model configured and adapted to simulate and predict tree growth,” (See Rötzer, Section 2.1, Equations 1-18, and Abstract, wherein mathematical models that simulate and predict tree growth are disclosed)
“the mathematical model comprising at least one of a Larix olgensis growth model, a Korean pine growth model, or a Fraxinus mandshurica growth model,” (See Xie, Abstract, wherein mathematical H-D (height-diameter) models for both Larix olgensis and Fraxinus mandshurica are configured and adapted to simulate and predict plant growth.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include the mathematical growth models of Xie into Rötzer’s simulation tree growth prediction system as mathematical models for these exact species are used to design and support forest management decisions. (See Xie Abstract).
“the data resources comprising environmental data, the environmental data comprising soil data and meteorological data, the soil data comprising soil texture, soil type, and soil trace element content, and the meteorological data comprising ambient temperature, humidity, and precipitation, ) – claim 6 (the data resources further comprising a respective set of state data for each respective tree species in a multiplicity of tree species, each respective set of state data comprising a tree height, a stem size, and a crown size, for one or more growth periods;” (See Rötzer, Section 2.1 & 2.4, Table 2 and 3, wherein, species-specific state data for each of its four modeled tree species across multiple growth periods with direct precision, Table 2 presents measured mean, minimum, and maximum values of: age, diameter at breast height, height, and crown volume. Crown projection area and crown diameter are additionally used throughout the model, where crown diameter constitutes crown size. The 2000 measured trees for simulation purposes explicitly providing state data organized by growth periods)
“a tree growth simulator configured and adapted to exchange data or metadata, or both, with the heterogeneous data adapter, the tree growth simulator and the simulation resource center each, respectively, configured and adapted for interactive operation with the other;” (See Rötzer, Section 2.1 and Fig.1, wherein Fig 1 discloses eight distinct modules (climate, plant development, water balance, photosynthesis, respiration, allocation, shading and cooling) which then receives heterogeneous inputs ( climate data, soil data, tree dimension data, phenological data). These are then translated into model-compatible parameters to reconstruct derived values (equation 4 and 5). this process constitutes description, mapping and reconstruction of data.)
“and a simulation results display device configured and adapted to receive data comprising visualization and analysis information from the simulation resource center, the tree growth simulator, or both, and to output analysis, comparison, or visualization of the data via a user interface, the simulation results display device comprising: a user input interface, configured and adapted for a user to input one or more simulation parameters, the simulation parameters comprising tree species information of landscape trees, and simulation duration; a simulation data analysis interface configured and adapted to display the final result data after analysis of the simulation results in the form of charts; and a visual simulation interface configured and adapted to dynamically and visually display the model simulation of the tree growth process;” (See Rötzer, Section 2.1, and 2.4, wherein the citytree model accepts tree species information and simulation time period as required input which constitutes to an user input interface accepting parameters.) (See Rötzer, Figures 2-8, and Table 4, wherein displaying and analyzing simulation results for user decision-making purposes is disclosed.)
“a data acquisition inserted link device comprising: a (See Rötzer Abstract wherein, an integrated tree growth modeling framework comprising data collection, data processing, model simulation and results output components operating as an unified system is disclosed).
“a sensor (See Rötzer Section 2.1 paragraph 1, 2.3 and Tables 1-4, wherein it is disclosed that the need for soil data as required inputs to citytree, confirming that a sensor providing soil data are precisely the inputs the simulation requires.)
“a network connection (See Rötzer Section 2.1 paragraph 3, Equations 1-18 and Tables 1-4, wherein it is disclosed that the meteorological data inclusing temperature and precipitation are essential model inputs and that such data can be obtained from network sources).
However, Rötzer in view of Mcpeek does not disclose “housing”, specifically a single physical housing that encloses and integrates all system components into a portable, field-deployable inserted link device. “support bar”; specifically a physical sensor support bar; “device”, specifically a network connection device integrated into a portable device.
Therefore, a secondary reference, Campbell discloses,
“housing”, (See Campbell Brief summary of the invention [0009], wherein a portable integrated physical housing that encloses data collection and monitoring components into a single deployable unit is disclosed. The entire system comprising the sensor, monitor, display, and communication components is integrated into a single portable housing deployable and retrievable from planting sites).
“support bar” (See Campbell [0005], [0006], [0009], and [0018], wherein a sensor support bar configured to support a multiplicity of sensors in soil to directly collect soil moisture and mineral content data at the planting site is disclosed).
“device” (See Campbell Detailed description of the invention [0018], wherein a sensor support is part of one of the embodiments.) In the interest of compact prosecution, also note that Campbell also teaches that the sensor monitor communicates meteorological and environmental data via network providing the precipitation and temperature data to the network input.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the integrated physical housing architecture taught by Campbell into the simulation tree growth prediction framework of Rötzer in view of Mcpeek. Campbell expresses that the system would enable cost effective, field-deployable tree growth prediction at planting sites before planting occurs. (See Campbell [0008]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Campbell’s portable soil sensors with Rötzer’s tree growth simulation framework, McPeek’s comprehensive data acquisition/display architecture and Xie’s validated mathematical models for Larix olgensis and Fraxinus mandshurica because each addresses a different aspect of the same problem, evaluating and predicting the growth suitability of trees in a planting environment. The combination amounts to integrating known sensor hardware (See Campbell [0018]), known growth simulation technology (See Rötzer Abstract), known multi-source data processing and visualization architecture (See Mcpeek Col 2, 11, 53-54), and known species-specific growth models (See Xie Page 1) to perform the function of predicting urban landscape tree growth. This would reduce the uncertainty and economic risk associated with urban tree planting decisions by replacing subjective professional judgment with quantitative, site-specific, species-specific growth forecasts, thereby lowering tree mortality rates and the associated replacement and maintenance costs for municipalities.
Regarding Claim 20, is being rejected under Rötzer in view of Mcpeek, Campbell, and Xie, as being analogous to claims 1-13 and 19,
“The system according to claim 19, the heterogeneous data adapter comprising: a data description module comprising a standard data format; a data mapping module is configured and adapted to map sensor data into the standard data format; and a data reconstruction module configured and adapted to reconstruct data from the standard data format into a respective model input format for each mathematical model; the tree growth simulator comprising: an input module; a calculation module configured and adapted to drive the tree growth model resource according to the multiplicity of data resources and to produce a set of simulation results of the tree growth model; an analysis module configured and adapted to analyze the set of simulation results of the tree growth model; and an output module; the calculation module comprising a model simulation module comprising five sub-modules: a respiration sub-module; a dry matter production sub-module; a dry matter distribution sub-module; a leaf area calculation sub-module; and a photosynthesis sub-module; wherein: the respiration sub-module is configured and adapted to interact with each of the dry matter production sub-module, the dry matter distribution sub-module, the leaf area calculation sub-module, and the photosynthesis sub-module, respectively, by exchanging data representing organics and energy; the respiration sub-module further configured and adapted to interact with the photosynthesis sub-module by exchanging data representing oxygen and water; and each sub-module of the model simulation module is connected with the model entries in the simulation resource center.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHNAZ J. SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/MEHNAZ JAREEN SIDDIQUEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2186 03/09/2026
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights