DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/3/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, 14-16, 18-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner would like to additionally address the Applicant’s arguments that may pertain to the newly revised rejection below so as to lessen confusion.
The Applicant on page 8-9 of Remarks, states “In Rajora, the polygons are used to specifically approximate the tree in the rasters (i.e., not the images). The polygons are used in calculating the distance between the electrical assets of a power distribution infrastructure and the tree. This distance is then used to notify of a potential hazard situation. See, Claim 1 of Rajora. As such, by trading the polygons that are constructed tight to the tree (e.g., as shown in FIG. 7 of Rajora) for bounding boxes, the suggested combination substantially grows the size of the tree. That is, the area captured by the bounding box, in the example below from FIG. 7B of Rajora, is far in excess of the specific tree geometry shown. As such, the distance from the polygon 754 to an electrical asset is closely tailored to identify potential hazards, as compared to various distances between the bounding box to the same electrical asset. This would, by definition, result in substantially less accurate identification of potential hazards. Consequently, the bounding box would result in false notification for the "potential hazard””.
It is then clear that the use of the bounding box, as an approximation of the boundary of the tree (in lieu of the polygon disclosed in Rajora) renders Rajora unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, i.e., the accurate identification of potential hazards for electrical assets based on distances between trees and electrical assets. See, MPEP § 3143.01(V) ("If a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, there may be no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification."). It would therefore not have been obvious to one skilled in the art to degrade the performance of Rajora in the manner suggested. The suggested combination of Rajora and Kozikowski therefore is improper.
Beyond that, there is no evidence of the alleged computational differences between a polygon and a bounding box, that, given available processing resources, any computation difference would have any appreciably impacted on the speed of issuing notifications as to potential hazards in Rajora. One skilled in the art, who is concerned with accuracy (as indicated in ||0006 of Rajora), would not consider the bounding box to be an obvious alternate to the polygon disclosed in Rajora. The alleged motivation is not correct or supported. As such, the suggested combination of Rajora and Kozikowski is improper”.
Rajora only finds the pixels of a tree and thus only finds the height of the pixels of these trees. A bounding box would not result in a false notification of potential hazards because it is simply boxing around the trees and because Rajora does not find the height of non-object pixels that may or may not be included inside the box.
“In the Advisory action dated January 13, 2026, the Office acknowledges that the bounding box would result in lower accuracy of what is being identified, but also argues to would result in "faster computations" as it "skips the steps of segmenting and outlining a tree." See, Advisory action dated Jan. 13, 2025. Applicant respectfully disagrees. By definition, a bounding box is a box (e.g., the smallest box) into which the "tree" in this example would fit. This requires, then, an understanding of the boundary of the tree. See the expert below, for example, with regard to how bounding boxes work (e.g., www.lakera.ai/ml-glossary/bounding- box, etc.).
How Bounding Boxes work: The creation of a bounding box begins by detecting the outermost points of an object slong each dimension. If the object is in two-dimensional space (like BB Image), it will have four limits: top, bottom, left, and right. For three-dimensional objects, it will have six limits adding front and back to k. The corners of the bounding box are then drawn connecting these outermost points, forming a box that fully encompasses the object.
There is no indication or support for the assertion that the steps of defining an outer boundary of the tree through segmentation, for example, could be omitted because the boundary is the basis for setting the bounding box. Stated another way, the boundary of the tree must be known to impose the bounding box (whether as a minimum bounding box, or other bounding).
Even if the Office's argument were true that segmentation could be omitted, the modified version of Rajora, relying on bounding boxes, rather than boundaries of the trees, would still be unsuitable for its intended purposes. The degradation would be substantial, whereby one skilled in the art would not view the modification as the mere trade off in computation speed, as the result effectively makes Rajora inoperable (as demonstrated in the illustration above) especially for thresholds on the order of approximately 1.5 m to approximately 2.0 m. See, e.g., $0083, 10085, etc. Rajora is therefore deficient, and the suggested combination, which relies on Rajora for the same, is also deficient”.
The examiner has changed their modification/motivation as showcased in the 103 rejections below and due to the modification/motivation not pertaining to the segmentation arguments as described in the Advisory action, the Applicant’s arguments are rendered moot.
The Applicant also states “The height at the center of a polygon -- or bounding box -- is not disclosed. As cited, Rajora discloses the canopy height model being generated, through groups of pixels. The first pixels are defined by a threshold and are object pixels, where the height of the first pixels in the digital surface model is the sum of the elevation of the ground and the height of an object on the ground. In the method 800, "the canopy height models of the geographic region by subtracting the final digital terrain models from the digital surface models." See, [0085. There is however no center of any polygon or box. The first pixels are pixels satisfying the threshold, the second pixels are associated with the first pixels and the third pixels surround the object. There is no indication that the center of the box is defined as the "height of tree" for each of the plurality of trees, which is used to determine the height of the tree. The center is not disclosed in Rajora.
The Office asserts that any pixel not on the boundary can be the center. The Office conflates the definitions of "center" and "inside." That is, any pixel not on the boundary is indeed "inside" the bounding box. The claim language is the "center of the bounding box." This, by definition, is not any point merely "inside" the bounding box, but is in fact the specific center of the bounding box, i.e., the intersection of the diagonals. This is not disclosed in Rajora, whereby the suggested combination is deficient.
In the Advisory action, the Office relies on the general definition of center. See, Advisory action dated Jan. 13, 2025. The first definition is eliminated because it refers to a circle. Applicant agrees the center of a circle or sphere is not the same as the center of a box. However, that does not mean there is no center (or centre or centroid) to a box. The definition of the center of a box is indeed readily available. The definition of the center of a box (in 2D or 3D) is the intersection of its diagonal lines, connecting opposite corners thereof. See, e.g., htps://math.answers.com/geometry/Does_the_centroid_of_rectangle_coincide_with_the_interse ction_of_diagonals”.
The examiner respectfully requests an IDS filled in with the provided links above. The examiner also believes this source is not sufficient, as the link provided was answered by an anonymous user 13 years ago. Using the Merriam Webster dictionary (as screenshotted below), a center can be considered a point or area that is most important to the indicated activity or interest. By using the broadest reasonable interpretation, a center can thus be anything that pertains to the pixels/detected tree at hand in the reference of Rajora. The examiner recommends amending so that the claim limitation reads “a height at an absolute center point of the bounding box…” to match the Applicant’s intentions.
PNG
media_image1.png
903
1038
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner would like to state however, that Rajora in view of Kozikowski would still read on the absolute center. As modified below, Kozikowski is simply surrounding Rajora’s trees with a bounding box, and due to every pixel of Rajora’s trees being labelled with a height as shown from the rasters (that are also DSM, as supported in paragraph 0081), there will always be an absolute center point within Kozikowski’s box (after modified), that is labelled with a height.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“identifying, by a computing device, in a three-dimensional Digital Surface Model (DSM), a plurality of image data associated with a respective plurality of trees” in claim 1;
“and a processing unit coupled to the memory storage” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 11, 14-15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajora (US 20240071073 A1) in view of Kozikowski (US 20220383436 A1) and Pothen (US 20240206365 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rajora discloses a computer-implemented method for forestry estimations (Rajora, paragraph [0057], “In some embodiments, communication network 108 represents one or more computer networks (for example, LANs, WANs, and/or the like).”), the method comprising:
identifying, by a computing device, in a three-dimensional Digital Surface Model (DSM), a plurality of image data associated with a respective plurality of trees (Rajora, paragraph [0080], "At step 310, the digital surface model module 212 receives digital surface models of the geographic region. At step 310, the digital surface model module 212 receives digital surface models of the geographic region. In some embodiments, the image retrieval module 204 receives a set of georeferenced stereo satellite images of a geographic region (step 302),").
While Rajora discloses the plurality of image data including satellite images (Rajora, paragraph [0045], “In various embodiments, the VIMS 104 may request current satellite images from third-parties such as Airbus Aerial and utilize the images to identify overgrown trees that require trimming”), they do not teach “each of the trees being encompassed by a bounding box in the plurality of image data”.
However, Kozikowski teaches each of the trees being encompassed by a bounding box in the plurality of image data, the plurality of image data including satellite images (Kozikowski, paragraph [0073], Fig. 7 below, “Many trees are also evident in the image and have been recognized and marked by the trained first model with boxes. For example, box 721 marks the tree adjacent the building 711; box 722 marks the tree adjacent the building 712; and box 723 marks the tree adjacent the building 713. Other objects may be apparent in overhead images and will be designated according to the legend included in window 702.”).
PNG
media_image2.png
357
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to encompass Rajora’s trees in a bounding box, as taught by Kozikowski.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to visually and accurately outline tree and non-tree objects.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
While Rajora in view of Kozikowski discloses determining, by the computing device, from the plurality of image data within the bounding boxes, species data associated with each of the plurality of trees, wherein determining the species data includes determining a canopy size of each of the plurality of trees based on the plurality of image data within the bounding box for the respective tree (Rajora, paragraph [0044], “In various embodiments, the VIMS 104 may enhance, orient, and analyze (for example, using artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) systems) geographic images to identify trees and/or vegetation in the images. The VIMS 104 may estimate the heights of trees, their crown areas, their volumes, and/or their densities.”), they do not explicitly teach doing so with a machine learning model.
However, Pothen teaches determining, by the computing device, from the plurality of image data within the bounding boxes, species data associated with each of the plurality of trees, wherein determining the species data includes determining, using a machine learning model, a canopy size of each of the plurality of trees based on the plurality of image data within the bounding box for the respective tree (Pothen, paragraph [0034], “Thereafter, the AI model 120 is used by the control device 106 to extract the features that indicate the physical characteristics, like colour of leaf, leaf-shape, stem shape and size, height of the crop plant, canopy size of the plant growth, and the like from the captured sequence of images”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to use an AI model to extract the canopy size of Rajora’s (in view of Kozikowski) trees, as taught by Pothen.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to automate the analysis process and reduce manual labor.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Rajora in view of Kozikowski and Pothen discloses for each of the plurality of trees, extracting, by the computing device, a height at a center point of the bounding box for said tree, from the three-dimensional DSM (Rajora, paragraph [0088], “Returning to FIG. 3, the canopy height models generated by the canopy height model module 214 are rasters in which every pixel has coordinates and a height value”, on paragraph [0081], it states DSM are rasters and every pixel of a tree contains a height),
determining, by the computing device, a height above ground for each of one the plurality of trees by subtracting (Rajora, paragraph [0083], "If not, then the method 800 proceeds to step 806, where the canopy height model module 214 then generates initial canopy height models by subtracting the initial digital terrain models from the digital surface models"), a height of ground associated with each of the plurality of trees determined from a three-dimensional Digital Terrain Model (DTM) (Rajora, paragraph [0082], "A digital terrain model gives the ground elevation, without the height of objects on the ground, in terms of difference with MSL") from the extracted height for the respective one of the plurality of trees (Rajora, paragraph [0081], "That is, a digital surface model gives the height of an object as the sum of the elevation of the ground and the height of the object on the ground. For example for a tree at a ground elevation of 200 m having a height of 10 m, the digital surface model would give the tree height as 210 m,"),
and determining, by the computing device, a volume associated with each of the plurality of trees based on the height of tree associated with each of the plurality of trees and the species data associated with each of the plurality of trees (Rajora, paragraph [0093], " The potential hazard vegetation identification module 218 may use the two-dimensional surface area of the polygon representing the tree that may be calculated by the vector module 210 and the maximum height of the tree to calculate the volume of the tree. The potential hazard vegetation identification module 218 may use the formula for the volume of a cone, V=⅓πr.sup.2h, to calculate the volume of the tree. In doing so, the potential hazard vegetation identification module 218 assumes that the tree has a generally conical shape. In some embodiments, the potential hazard vegetation identification module 218 identifies a species of the tree and utilizes the species of the tree in calculating the volume of the tree as well as the density of the tree").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Rajora in view of Kozikowski and Pothen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Rajora in view of Kozikowski and Pothen discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising determining a value of forest based on the volume associated with each of the plurality of trees (Rajora, paragraph [0054], "In some embodiments, if the estimated height of vegetation is generally greater than or equal to a distance between the tree and an electrical asset, the VIMS 104 may identify the vegetation as a potential hazard and provide a notification to the utility system 106 of the potentially hazardous vegetation. In some embodiments, the VIMS 104 may rank the geographic areas contained within a geographic region based on the potentially hazardous vegetation and the facilities served by the utility system 106 (for example, residences, businesses, government and/or public health facilities) that are within the geographic areas. The VIMS 104 may provide notifications of the ranked geographic areas to the utility system 106", height is a part of a trees’ volume).
Regarding claim 7, Rajora in view of Kozikowski and Pothen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the species data associated with each of the plurality of trees comprises determining a species associated with each of the plurality of trees (Rajora, paragraph [0093], "The species of trees may be determined using AI and stored in the data storage 224").
Regarding claim 11, Rajora in view of Kozikowski and Pothen discloses the method of claim 1, wherein identifying the plurality of image data associated with the respective plurality of trees comprise using a Machine Learning Model (MLM) (Rajora, paragraph [0044], "In various embodiments, the VIMS 104 may enhance, orient, and analyze (for example, using artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning (ML) systems) geographic images to identify trees and/or vegetation in the images").
Claims 14-15 correspond to claims 1-2, additionally reciting a system (Rajora, paragraph [0110], “Digital device 1100 is shown in the form of a general-purpose computing device”) comprising:
a memory storage (Rajora, paragraph [0117], “In some embodiments, storage 1110 can include computer system readable media in the form of volatile memory, such as read only memory (ROM) and/or cache memory”)
and a processing unit coupled to the memory storage (Rajora, paragraph [0126], “These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general-purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks,”). Thus, claims 14-15 are rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claims 1-2.
Claim 18 corresponds to claim 1, additionally reciting a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a set of instructions which when executed perform a method executed by the set of instructions (Rajora, paragraph [0117], “The storage 1110 may include non-transitory computer-readable media that stores programs or applications for performing functions such as those described herein with reference to, for example, FIG. 2,”). Thus, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 1.
Claim(s) 3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajora (US 20240071073 A1) in view of Kozikowski (US 20220383436 A1), Pothen (US 20240206365 A1), and in further view of Lin (US 20130141589 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Rajora in view of Kozikowski and Pothen discloses the method of claim 1.
Rajora in view of Kozikowski and Pothen does not teach “further comprising determining a growth of forest based on the volume associated with each of the plurality of trees”.
However, Lin teaches further comprising determining a growth of forest based on the volume associated with each of the plurality of trees (Lin, paragraph [0032], "Therefore, once the two-dimensional and three-dimensional images of a planting bed are obtained and further performed by the noise removing, the planting bed features identification and the spatial distortion correction, some plant characteristics, such as the plant height, leaf area or volume can be measured so as to compute and analyze the plant growth models and thereby creating an appropriate environment for the plant growth and increasing the crop yield and quality,").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to measure the growth of Rajora’s (in view of Kozikowski and Pothen) trees based on its volume, as taught by Lin.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to analyze the trees’ growth patterns, providing for better harvests.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Rajora in view of Kozikowski, Pothen, and in further view of Lin to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Claim 16 corresponds to claim 3, additionally reciting the system of claim 14 (Rajora, paragraph [0110], “Digital device 1100 is shown in the form of a general-purpose computing device”), wherein the processing unit (Rajora, paragraph [0126], “These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general-purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks,”). Thus, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claim 3.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajora (US 20240071073 A1) in view of Kozikowski (US 20220383436 A1), Pothen (US 20240206365 A1), and in further view of Loveland (US 10366287 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Rajora in view of Kozikowski and Pothen discloses the method of claim 1.
Rajora in view of Kozikowski and Pothen does not teach “wherein determining the species data associated with each of the plurality of trees comprises determining the species data based on a color associated with each of the plurality of trees determined from the plurality of image data associated with a respective plurality of trees”.
However, Loveland teaches wherein determining the species data associated with each of the plurality of trees comprises determining the species data based on a color associated with each of the plurality of trees determined from the plurality of image data associated with a respective plurality of trees (Loveland, Col. 18, Line 48-54, "In some embodiments, the tree variety identification subsystem may identify a tree variety based on the shape of branches, current height of the tree, current width of the tree, bark texture, bark pattern, bark color, foliage color, foliage shape, foliage size, needle size, needle clusters, fruit of the tree, flowers on the tree, cones produced by the tree, etc").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to estimate Rajora’s (in view of Kozikowski and Pothen) trees type based on their bark and foliage color, as taught by Loveland.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to save time and acquire quicker determinations of tree types, as opposed to doing a full-on analysis of the tree.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Rajora in view of Kozikowski, Pothen, and in further view of Loveland to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Rajora in view of Kozikowski and Pothen discloses the method of claim 1.
Rajora in view of Kozikowski and Pothen does not teach “wherein determining the species data associated with each of the plurality of trees comprises determining the species data based on a texture associated with each of the plurality of trees determined from the plurality of image data associated with a respective plurality of trees”.
However, Loveland teaches wherein determining the species data associated with each of the plurality of trees comprises determining the species data based on a texture associated with each of the plurality of trees determined from the plurality of image data associated with a respective plurality of trees (Loveland, Col. 18, Line 48-54, "In some embodiments, the tree variety identification subsystem may identify a tree variety based on the shape of branches, current height of the tree, current width of the tree, bark texture, bark pattern, bark color, foliage color, foliage shape, foliage size, needle size, needle clusters, fruit of the tree, flowers on the tree, cones produced by the tree, etc").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to estimate Rajora’s (in view of Kozikowski and Pothen) trees type based on their bark texture, as taught by Loveland.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to save time and acquire quicker determinations of tree types, as opposed to doing a full-on analysis of the tree.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Rajora in view of Kozikowski, Pothen, and in further view of Loveland to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Claims 19-20 corresponds to claims 5-6, additionally reciting a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a set of instructions which when executed perform a method executed by the set of instructions (Rajora, paragraph [0117], “The storage 1110 may include non-transitory computer-readable media that stores programs or applications for performing functions such as those described herein with reference to, for example, FIG. 2,”). Thus, claims 19-20 is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as claims 5-6.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajora (US 20240071073 A1) in view of Kozikowski (US 20220383436 A1), Pothen (US 20240206365 A1), and in further view of Holkesvik (US 11481904 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Rajora in view of Kozikowski and Pothen discloses the method of claim 1.
Rajora in view of Kozikowski and Pothen does not teach “wherein the species data comprises one of coniferous and deciduous”.
However, Holkesvik teaches wherein the species data comprises one of coniferous and deciduous (Holkesvik, Col. 2, Line 27-39, "In addition, the determined tree inventory information for the target land area may include various types of information about the trees present on the target land area, such as, for example, predictions of one or more of the following: particular tree species present on the target land area, quantities of each of the tree species, sizes of the trees (e.g., diameter, height, volume, etc.), aggregate tree information for the target land area (e.g., tree basal area, live tree biomass, forest type, tree system density, etc.) and other characteristics of the trees (e.g., deciduous or coniferous, tree genuses or tree groupings other than based on tree species, tree quadratic mean diameter, etc.), additional types of related information, etc,").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to determine if Rajora’s (in view of Kozikowski and Pothen) trees was coniferous or deciduous, as taught by Holkesvik.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to understand their unique roles in the ecosystem, resulting in better informed landscaping decision makings.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Rajora in view of Kozikowski, Pothen, and in further view of Holkesvik to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajora (US 20240071073 A1) in view of Kozikowski (US 20220383436 A1), Pothen (US 20240206365 A1), and in further view of Uljanovs (US 20230316744 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Rajora in view of Kozikowski and Pothen discloses the method of claim 1.
Rajora in view of Kozikowski and Pothen does not teach “further comprising determining a Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) for each of the plurality of trees based on the height above ground for each of the plurality of trees”.
However, Uljanovs teaches further comprising determining a Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) for each of the plurality of trees based on the height above ground for each of the plurality of trees (Uljanovs, paragraph [0007], “determining a diameter of the trunk of the at least one tree at a predetermined height from a highest point of a ground surface surrounding the trunk, wherein the directional vector is employed for determining the diameter of the trunk,”, diameter at breast height is getting the diameter of a tree trunk).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to determine the diameter of Rajora’s (in view of Kozikowski and Pothen) trees based on its height, as taught by Uljanovs.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to find a potential correlation between its height and diameter, resulting in better understanding of the forestry.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Rajora in view of Kozikowski, Pothen, and in further view of Uljanovs to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajora (US 20240071073 A1 in view of Kozikowski (US 20220383436 A1), Pothen (US 20240206365 A1), Uljanovs (US 20230316744 A1), and in further view of Kikuchi (US 20220114810 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Rajora in view of Kozikowski, Pothen, and Uljanovs discloses the method of claim 9.
Rajora in view of Kozikowski, Pothen, and Uljanovs does not teach “wherein determining the volume associated with each of the plurality of trees comprises using the DBH for each of the plurality of trees”.
However, Kikuchi teaches wherein determining the volume associated with each of the plurality of trees comprises using the DBH for each of the plurality of trees (Kikuchi, paragraph [0082], “As illustrated in these figures, the present forest resource information generation structure 100 has a characteristic configuration including a tree volume calculation processing section 37 for calculating tree volume information D37 based on breast height diameter information D35, in addition to an above-described configuration”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to replace Rajora’s (in view of Kozikowski, Pothen, and Uljanovs) method of estimating volume with determining the volume of Rajora’s trees based on the trees’ diameter, as taught by Kikuchi.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been because having the diameter and height allows for an accurate determination of a trees’ volume, as opposed to estimating it from image data.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Rajora in view of Kozikowski, Pothen, and in further view of Uljanovs and in further view of Kikuchi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE ZHANG whose telephone number is (571) 272-0245. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00 EST.
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, Ms. Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached on (571) 272-3638. 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.
/WAYNE ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights