DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 02/06/2026 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-13 and 15-23 have been amended. Regarding claims 4,6,8 and 14: cancelled. And claim 24: added.
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 1-3, 5,7, 9-13 and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Each of claims1-3, 5,7, 9-13 and 16-24 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. For example, each of claims 1-3, 5,7, 9-13 and 16-23 fall within category of process and Claim 24 is directed to a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and therefore falls within category of manufacture.
Regarding Claims 1-3, 5,7, 9-13 and 16-23
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of correlating the remotely sensed dataset with the ground truth data.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
A method, comprising:
obtaining ground truth data for a reference parcel of land containing at least one tree,
wherein the ground truth data includes geometric data for the at least one tree, and
wherein the geometric data characterizes the at least one tree by a custom shape;
receiving, from a plurality of remote sensors, a remotely sensed dataset, wherein the remotely sensed dataset comprises measurements of a plurality of data types corresponding to the reference parcel of land; and
ground truthing, for each of the plurality of data types, the remotely sensed dataset for the reference parcel of land by, for a given sensor of the plurality of remote sensors:
correlating the measurements of a corresponding data type with the ground truth data; and
calibrating parameters used by the given sensor according to correlations observed between the measurements of the corresponding data type and the ground truth data..
The italicized limitations above represent a combination of mathematical concepts (mathematical rules or function) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitation “ground truthing [..]; correlating the measurements of a corresponding data[..]; [..] correlations observed between the measurements[..]” are a combination of mathematical concepts and mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, only additional first element is “obtaining ground truth data for a reference parcel of land containing at least one tree, wherein the ground truth data includes geometric data for the at least one tree, and wherein the geometric data characterizes the at least one tree by a custom shape; receiving, from a plurality of remote sensors, a remotely sensed dataset, wherein the remotely sensed dataset comprises measurements of a plurality of data types corresponding to the reference parcel of land” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
In view of the above “the additional element” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
.
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 1 contains additional elements that is, i.e. remote sensors”, generic devices, which are well understood, routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
.
Dependent Claims 2-3, 5,7, 9-13 and 16-23
Dependent claims 2-3, 5,7, 9-13 and 16-23 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-3, 5,7, 9-13 and 16-23 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
For example, the limitations of Claims 2- 3, 9-12, 15( obtaining [..]),17- 19, 20( obtaining [..]), 21, 23, to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
For example, the limitations of Claims 5, 7, 13, 15, 15(identifying [..]), 20(constructing[..]), 22 are a combination of mathematical concepts (mathematical rules or function) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 24
Claim 24 contains language similar to claim 1 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claim 24 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5,7, 9-13 and 15-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zoe (Tree Census Collection Methodology & Urban Forest Accuracy and Modeling, 09-2019).
Regarding Claims 1 and 24. Zoe teaches a method, comprising (introduction: section 1, page 1-2; fig. 1-2, 6):
obtaining ground truth data for a reference parcel of land containing at least one tree, wherein the ground truth data includes geometric data for the at least one tree, and wherein the geometric data characterizes the at least one tree by a custom shape (introduction: section 1, page 1-2; fig. 1; fig.6);
receiving, from a plurality of remote sensors, a remotely sensed dataset, wherein the remotely sensed dataset comprises measurements of a plurality of data types corresponding to the reference parcel of land(section1, 1.3 & 3.3, pages 1-2, 8, 26-28); and
ground truthing, for each of the plurality of data types, the remotely sensed dataset for the reference parcel of land by, for a given sensor of the plurality of remote sensors((introduction: section 1, page 1-2; fig. 2; Urban Forestry Data Avalanche and Open-Source Data: section 2.2; Methodology: section 2.2; discussion: section 5; Remote Sensing & GIS Methodology: section 3.3, page 26-28; section 5.2, pages 44-46);
correlating the measurements of a corresponding data type with the ground truth data(fig.2; section 1, page 1-2); and
calibrating parameters used by the given sensor according to correlations observed between the measurements of the corresponding data type and the ground truth data(section 1, page 1-2, fig. 7-14; sections 4-5).
Regarding Claim 2. Zoe further teaches generating the geometric data for the at least one tree is obtained by measuring at least one geometric attribute of the at least one tree((introduction: section 1, page 1-2; fig. 1; fig. 6: page 18).
Regarding Claim 3. Zoe further teaches the at least one geometric attribute is selected from the group consisting of: tree height, crown base, diameter at breast height, ground, north canopy, east canopy, south canopy, and west canopy(fig. 6: page 18; table 2, page 17).
Regarding Claims 5 and 22. Zoe further teaches the custom shape is a the two-dimensional shape selected from the group consisting of a Kabachnik ellipse and a Kabachnik quadrilateral, and is characterized by two perpendicular, wherein each axis comprises two arms each extending from the intersection, and wherein at least one of the arms extending from the intersection has a different length than the other arms (section 3.2: page 19-20; figs. 7-9 and 15: page 20).
Regarding Claim 7. Zoe further teaches the custom shape is a three-dimensional shape selected from the group consisting of: a Kabachnik ellipsoid, a Kabachnik ellipsoid cone, a Kabachnik ellipsoid trapezium, and a Kabachnik ellipsoid cylinder. (figs. 10-15: page 21-24).
Regarding Claim 9. Zoe further teaches the remotely sensed dataset comprises at least one selected group of satellite imagery, airborne sensor data, airborne photography, photogrammetry, astrophotography, and LiDAR(LiDAR : fig. 2, page 2; infrared photography: page 45; Satellites, drones, and embedded sensors: page 13).
Regarding Claim 10. Zoe further teaches the remotely sensed dataset is a commercial product(Methodology :section 3; Google Earth :section 3.3, pages 26-28).
Regarding Claim 11. Zoe further teaches the commercial product is a virtual mapping (Google Earth: section 3.3, page 26-28) .
Regarding Claim 12. Zoe further teaches the ground truth data comprises in-situ data for the reference parcel of land ( street: section 3.1).
Regarding Claim 13. Zoe further teaches wherein ground truthing generates a construct selected from the group consisting of a 2D construct of the reference parcel of land and a 3D construct of the at least one tree in the reference parcel of land ( section 3.1; 2D: fig. 6-9; 3D: fig. 10-14).
Regarding Claim 15. Zoe further teaches ground truthing determines at least one metric selected from the group consisting of: biomass, leaf area index, and carbon storage(section 5.2, page 44-46).
Regarding Claim 16. Zoe further teaches monitoring a target parcel of land by: obtaining a second remotely sensed dataset, wherein the second remotely sensed dataset is obtained for the target parcel of land(Table 2; section 5.2, page 44-46); and
identifying a metric in the target parcel of land, wherein the metric is selected from the group consisting of: total canopy cover, biomass, leaf area index, and carbon storage(section 5.2, page 44-46).
Regarding Claim 17. Zoe further teaches obtaining a third remotely sensed dataset, wherein the third remotely sensed dataset is obtained for the target parcel of land, wherein the third remotely sensed dataset is obtained at a different time than the remotely sensed dataset(section 4.1, page 29-33); and
identifying a change in the target parcel of land (section 4.1, page 29-33).
Regarding Claim 18. Zoe further teaches monitoring a target parcel of land further comprises harmonizing the second remotely sensed dataset in at least one selected from the group consisting of two dimensions and three dimensions(vertical: section 3.2; Image Pixel Processing, raster image: section 3.3).
Regarding Claim 19. Zoe further teaches harmonizing comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of regridding, fishnetting, rasterizing, and interpolating (vertical: section 3.2; Image Pixel Processing, raster image: section 3.3).
Regarding Claim 20. Zoe further teaches a method for harmonizing a plurality of verified datasets for a remotely sensed phenomenon having an irregular shape, by(introduction: section 1, page 1-2; fig. 1-2, 6; section 3.2, section 4.1, section 5.2):
obtaining at least one measurement of the remotely sensed phenomenon(introduction: section 1, page 1-2; fig. 2; discussion: section 5; Remote Sensing & GIS Methodology: section 3.3, page 26-28); and
constructing a geometric model of the remotely sensed phenomenon based on the at least one measurement(introduction: section 1, page 1-2; fig. 1-2; discussion: section 5; Remote Sensing & GIS Methodology: section 3.3, page 26-28).
Regarding Claim 21. Zoe further teaches the at least one measurement is selected from the group consisting of: tree height, crown base, diameter at breast height, ground, north canopy, east canopy, south canopy, and west canopy(fig. 6: page 18).
Regarding Claim 23. Zoe further teaches at least one of the plurality of data types is selected from the group consisting of: a spectral data type, a temporal data type, a radiometric data type, and a spatial data type(sections 2 and 3.3, pages 10, 14, 26-28).
Response to Argument
The Affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 02/06/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-24 based upon discloser published on 09/2019 as set forth in the last Office action because: Where the evidence is insufficient to overcome the rejection, because 37 CFR 1.130(c) provides that the provisions of 37 CFR 1.130 are not available if the rejection is based upon a disclosure made more than one year before the effective filing date (11/09/2020) of the claimed invention. A disclosure made more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and does not meet the requirements for exception under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1).
Applicant’s arguments with respect 101 rejection, specially claims 1, 11 and 19-20 The applicant did not agree with it. Applicant argus that “under the above standards, the data analysis performed through ground truthing remotely sensed dataset via correlation with ground truth data, is itself significantly more complex than could practically be performed in the human mind. In particular, SiRF Tech. identifies the following claim as patent-eligible”, see, pages 2-4.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree because current claim with amendment is not like SiRF Tech where the claim is further limited to a mobile device comprising a GPS receiver, microprocessor, wireless communication transceiver and a display that receives satellite data, calculates pseudo-ranges, wirelessly transmits the calculated pseudo-ranges to the server, receives location data from the server, and displays a visual representation of the received calculated absolute position from the server. The programmed CPU acts in concert with the recited features of the mobile device to enable the mobile device to determine and display its absolute position through interaction with a remote server and multiple remote satellites.
However, Current claim invention represent a combination of mathematical concepts (mathematical rules or function) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment). Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. For example, the limitation “ground truthing [..]; correlating the measurements of a corresponding data[..]; [..] correlations observed between the measurements[..]” are a combination of mathematical concepts and mental steps (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).Step 2A – Prong 2: Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. For example, only additional first element is “obtaining ground truth data for a reference parcel of land containing at least one tree, wherein the ground truth data includes geometric data for the at least one tree, and wherein the geometric data characterizes the at least one tree by a custom shape; receiving, from a plurality of remote sensors, a remotely sensed dataset, wherein the remotely sensed dataset comprises measurements of a plurality of data types corresponding to the reference parcel of land” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). In view of the above “the additional element” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Step 2B: Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 1 contains additional elements that is, i.e. remote sensors”, generic devices, which are well understood, routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d)). The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II). The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see the rejection above. Furthermore, See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer and the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. As such 101 rejection is maintain. See examples 37-49. As such 101 rejection is maintained.
.
Examiner Notes
As an alternately, Ma (US 2011/0242521) also teaches Claims 1-23, specifically 1-3, 8-9 and 12. See, [0003], [0006], [0022]-[0027, [0034].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Yun et al. (US 20230350065) disclose a method of individual tree crown segmentation from airborne LiDAR data using a novel Gaussian filter and energy function minimization.
b) Wekel et al. (US 11,906,660) disclose The DNN may be trained using camera-to-LiDAR cross injection to generate reliable ground truth data for LiDAR range images. For example, annotations generated in the image domain may be propagated to the LiDAR domain to increase the accuracy of the ground truth data in the LiDAR domain—e.g., without requiring manual annotation in the LiDAR domain. Once trained, the DNN may output instance segmentation masks, class segmentation masks, and/or bounding shape proposals corresponding to two-dimensional (2D) LiDAR range images, and the outputs may be fused together to project the outputs into three-dimensional (3D) LiDAR point clouds. This 2D and/or 3D information output by the DNN may be provided to an autonomous vehicle drive stack to enable safe planning and control of the autonomous vehicle.
c) Ram et al. (US 2012/0114185) disclose A system and method for computing an amount of timber that can be harvested from a plurality of trees is provided. An image related to a plurality of trees in a region may be obtained. A digital representation of the image may be analyzed to determine at least one of a presence, a location and/or a height of at least some of the trees. An inventory report related to an amount of timber that may be harvested may be generated based on at least one of the presence, location and/or a height of trees in the region.
d) Rousselle et al. (US 2010/0205219) disclose A method for locating a stem of a target tree is disclosed. The target tree is identified from a sensing dataset. At least one slice is created from the sensing dataset. The at least one slice includes at least a portion of the target tree. A tree stem location of the target tree is determined from the at least one slice. A system for locating a stem of a target tree is also disclosed. The system has a processor configured to implement the described method. The system also has a data input coupled to the processor and configured to provide the processor with the sensing dataset. The system further has a user interface coupled to either the processor or the data input.
e) Suv. Et al. (US 2009/0210205) disclose A geospatial modeling system may include a geospatial model data storage device containing geospatial model data including a plurality of groups of tree crown vegetation points and a display. The system may further include a processor cooperating with the geospatial model data storage device and the display for displaying a simulated tree trunk beneath a group of tree crown vegetation points, and displaying at least one level of simulated tree branches for the simulated tree trunk. Each tree branch may be positioned based upon determining a branch distal reference point beneath a cluster of tree crown vegetation points from among the group of tree crown vegetation points.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857