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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is less than 50 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should be amended to recite:
“…and compare a result of the comparison with…”in line 4;
“…based on a result of the comparison with the at least one predetermined threshold value…”in line 6; and
“…is required data to sync…” in line 7.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim should be amended to recite “…transmitting the first local environment data…” in line 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the Claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture or Composition of Matter?
Claim 1 recites a cloud server for assessing tree and forest health by measurement of tree communication through air borne particles; Claim 12 recites a node for assessing tree and forest health via measurement of tree communication through air borne particles; Claim 14 recites a method for assessing tree and forest health by measurement of tree communication through air borne particles; and Claim 15 recites a method for assessing tree and forest health via measurement of tree communication through air borne particles. Therefore, the Claims are to machines and methods, which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A: Prong One: Does the Claim Recite an Abstract Idea?
Independent claim 1 recites:
A cloud server for assessing tree and forest health by measurement of tree communication through air borne particles, the cloud server being configured to:
receive first local environment data including data related to air borne particles from a plurality of nodes;
transmit second local environment data to the plurality of nodes;
receive at least one first prediction of the local environment from at least one of the plurality of nodes;
perform a second prediction of the local environment based on the first local environment data and the second local environment data [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and also a mental process because they can be performed in the human mind];
compare the second prediction of the local environment with at least one of the first predictions of the local environment [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and also a mental process because they can be performed in the human mind]; and
when a difference between the at least one of the first predictions and the second prediction is determined to exceed a threshold value, request updated first local environment data or transmitting updated second local environment data to at least one of the plurality of nodes.
Independent Claim 12 recites:
A node for assessing tree and forest health via measurement of tree communication through air borne particles, the node being provided in the vicinity of a tree and being configured to:
sense first local environment data including data related to air borne particles;
receive second local environment data from a cloud server;
perform a first prediction of the local environment based on the first local environment data and the second local environment data [the examiner finds that the foregoing underlined element recites mathematical concepts, and also a mental process because they can be performed in the human mind];
transmit the first local environment data to the cloud server; and
transmit the first prediction of the local environment to the cloud server.
Step 2A: Prong Two: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Abstract Idea Into a Practical Application?
The elements in independent Claim 1 that are not underlined above are the additional elements (i.e., a cloud server; “receive first local environment data including data related to air borne particles from a plurality of nodes”; “transmit second local environment data to the plurality of nodes”; “receive at least one first prediction of the local environment from at least one of the plurality of nodes”, and “when a difference between the at least one of the first predictions and the second prediction is determined to exceed a threshold value, request updated first local environment data or transmitting updated second local environment data to at least one of the plurality of nodes”).
The examiner submits that each of the following additional elements in Claim 1 does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of the abstract idea are performed. The cloud server is merely generic computer hardware; the receiving steps are mere gathering of data for use in the abstract idea; the transmitting step is mere insignificant extra-solution activity; and the requesting step is merely outputting a result of the abstract idea.
The elements in independent Claim 12 that are not underlined above are the additional elements (i.e., a node; “sense first local environment data including data related to air borne particles”; “receive second local environment data from a cloud server”; “transmit the first local environment data to the cloud server”; “transmit the first prediction of the local environment to the cloud server”).
The examiner submits that each of the following additional elements in Claim 12 does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely an incidental or token addition to the claim that does not alter or affect how the process steps of the abstract idea are performed. The node is merely generic computer hardware and a generic sensor; the sensing and receiving steps are mere gathering of data for use in the abstract idea; and the transmitting steps are merely outputting a result of the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For example, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount to Significantly More Than the Abstract Idea?
The examiner submits that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reasons discussed above with respect to the conclusion that the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent Claim 14 recites essentially the same steps as Claim 1, and independent Claim 15 recites essentially the same steps as Claim 12; therefore Claims 14 and 15 are also not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-11 and 13 are also not patent eligible. Dependent Claims 2-11 merely recite further details of the mathematical concepts and/or mental process, and Claim 13 merely recites generic hardware.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-5, 8-10, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0306609, hereinafter “Agarwal”) in view of Kim (KR-20200001969-A).
Regarding Claim 1, Agarwal teaches a cloud server (computer system 104) for measurement of air borne particles (paragraph [0078], humidity, air quality, or air composition sensor), the cloud server being configured to: receive first local environment data including data related to air borne particles from a plurality of nodes (Fig. 5, sensor assemblies 102); transmit second local environment data to the plurality of nodes (end of paragraph [0043], server system can transmit a signal or instruction to the sensor assembly to inform the sensor assembly what features should be extracted, which is equated to second local environment data); receive at least one first prediction of the local environment from at least one of the plurality of nodes (paragraph [0043], featurization module 112 determines or extracts features from sensor data for transmission to computer system 104; the featurized data would include trends, i.e., predictions, based on the sensor data); perform a second prediction of the local environment based on the first local environment data and the second local environment data (machine learning module 116 creates virtual sensor 118, which predicts various events that may occur; virtual sensor is equated to claimed second prediction); compare the second prediction of the local environment with at least one of the first predictions of the local environment (virtual sensor 118 processes data from sensors 110, which would involve comparisons, paragraph [0035] and [0045]); and when a difference between the at least one of the first predictions and the second prediction is determined to exceed a threshold value (this claim feature is contingent, such that if the “when” clause evaluates to negative, i.e., when the difference does not exceed the threshold value, the requesting is not performed, see MPEP 2111.04(II); therefore, no patentable weight is given to this claim feature. It is recommended that Applicant amend the claim to positively recite performing this claim features, e.g., by changing “when” to “based on”. Further, this is taught in paragraph [0045], thresholds in the virtual sensors 118 are determined to characterize the training data; when the data from the sensor(s) exceeds a threshold, i.e. when the difference between the sensor data and a threshold in the virtual sensor 118 exceeds a minimal amount, which is equated to the claimed threshold value, it can be determined that an event has been detected), request updated first local environment data or transmitting updated second local environment data to at least one of the plurality of nodes (paragraph [0058], virtual sensor can subscribe to data streams from sensors based on event detection training being completed).
Agarwal does not specifically teach that the cloud server is for assessing tree and forest health by measurement of tree communication through air borne particles. However, Kim teaches in Fig. 1 an integrated management server 190 in communication with a number of measuring devices 110 and 120 that assesses forest health through detection of phytoncides that are emitted by trees. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the phytoncide detection taught in Kim in a virtual sensor system such as is taught by Agarwal, in order to provide accurate phytoncide occurrence information to those who want to heal the forest, as well as those who want to enjoy forest tourism (see Kim, background section).
Regarding Claim 2, Agarwal in view of Kim teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Agarwal further teaches wherein the first local environment data is related to at least one of a Biogenic Volatile Organic Compound, the body of a tree, temperature, humidity, pressure, light, and sound (paragraph [0078], humidity, air quality, or air composition sensor).
Regarding Claim 3, Agarwal in view of Kim teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Agarwal further teaches wherein the second local environment data is related to at least one of satellite data, data from an aircraft, ground based sensor data, manual measurements, weather data, and soil data (paragraph [0078], humidity, air quality, or air composition sensor are equated to both ground based sensor data and weather data; the signal or instruction to the sensor assembly to inform the sensor assembly what features should be extracted, see paragraph [0043], is related to the type of the sensor).
Regarding Claim 4, Agarwal in view of Kim teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Agarwal further teaches wherein the cloud server is further configured to: compare the second prediction of the local environment with the at least one of the first predictions of the local environment (virtual sensor 118, which is equated to the second prediction, processes data from sensors 110, which would involve comparisons, paragraph [0035] and [0045]) and the result thereof with at least one predetermined threshold value (paragraph [0045], thresholds in the virtual sensors 118 are determined to characterize the training data and compared to the data from sensors 110; when the difference between the sensor data and a threshold in the virtual sensor 118 exceeds a minimal amount, which is equated to the claimed predetermined threshold value, it can be determined that an event has been detected), determine, based on a result of the comparison, which part of the first local environment data and which part of the second local environment data is required to sync the at least one of the first predictions of the local environment and the second predictions of the local environment with each other (paragraph [0058], virtual sensor can subscribe to data streams from sensors based on event detection training being completed; subscribing to data streams is equated to claimed sync), wherein further the requested updated first local environment data or the transmitted updated second local environment data corresponds to this determined required data (paragraph [0058], virtual sensor can subscribe to data streams from sensors based on event detection training being completed).
Regarding Claim 5, Agarwal in view of Kim teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 4. Agarwal further teaches wherein comparing the second prediction of the local environment, the at least one of the first predictions of the local environment, and the at least one predetermined threshold value comprises: a predetermined threshold value that indicates that first local environment data is required to sync the at least one of the first predictions of the local environment and the second predictions of the local environment with each other (paragraph [0045], thresholds in the virtual sensors 118, which are equated to the second prediction, are determined to characterize the training data and compared to the data from sensors 110; when the difference between the sensor data and a threshold in the virtual sensor 118 exceeds a minimal amount, which is equated to the claimed predetermined threshold value, it can be determined that an event has been detected; paragraph [0058], virtual sensor can subscribe to data streams from sensors based on event detection training being completed; subscribing to data streams is equated to claimed sync), or that second local environment data is required to sync the at least one of the first predictions of the local environment and the second predictions of the local environment with each other (no patentable weight due to “or”).
Regarding Claim 8, Agarwal in view of Kim teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Agarwal further teaches wherein requesting updated first local environment data comprises updating a local sensor protocol or a local sensor configuration (no patentable weight due to contingent limitation in claim 1; however, this is taught by paragraph [0058], virtual sensor can subscribe to data streams from sensors based on event detection training being completed, which is equated to local sensor configuration).
Regarding Claim 9, Agarwal in view of Kim teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Agarwal further teaches wherein requesting updated first local environment data comprises updating a local model (no patentable weight due to contingent limitation in claim 1; however, this is taught by paragraph [0058], virtual sensor can subscribe to data streams from sensors based on event detection training being completed, which is equated to updating local model).
Regarding Claim 10, Agarwal in view of Kim teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Agarwal further teaches wherein requesting updated first local environment data comprises updating local parameters (no patentable weight due to contingent limitation in claim 1; however, this is taught by paragraph [0058], virtual sensor can subscribe to data streams from sensors based on event detection training being completed, which is equated to updating local parameters).
Regarding Claim 12, Agarwal teaches a node for measurement of air borne particles (Fig. 5, sensor assemblies 102; paragraph [0078], humidity, air quality, or air composition sensor), the node being configured to: sense first local environment data including data related to air borne particles (Fig. 5, sensor assemblies 102); receive second local environment data from a cloud server (end of paragraph [0043], server system can transmit a signal or instruction to the sensor assembly to inform the sensor assembly what features should be extracted, which is equated to second local environment data); perform a first prediction of the local environment based on the first local environment data and the second local environment data (paragraph [0043], featurization module 112 determines or extracts features from sensor data; the featurized data would include trends, i.e., predictions, based on the sensor data); transmit the first local environment data to the cloud server (paragraph [0043], various features of sensor data may be transmitted to the computer system 104); and transmit the first prediction of the local environment to the cloud server (paragraph [0043], featurization module 112 determines or extracts features from sensor data; the featurized data would include trends, i.e., predictions, based on the sensor data).
Agarwal does not specifically teach that the node is for assessing tree and forest health by measurement of tree communication through air borne particles, and that the node is provided in the vicinity of a tree. However, Kim teaches in Fig. 1 an integrated management server 190 in communication with a number of measuring devices 110 and 120 that assesses forest health through detection of phytoncides that are emitted by trees (i.e., the measuring devices 110 are in the vicinity of trees). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the phytoncide detection taught in Kim in a virtual sensor system such as is taught by Agarwal, in order to provide accurate phytoncide occurrence information to those who want to heal the forest, as well as those who want to enjoy forest tourism (see Kim, background section).
Regarding Claim 13, Agarwal in view of Kim teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claims 1 and 12. Agarwal in view of Kim further teaches a system for assessing tree and forest health via measurement of tree communication through air borne particles, the system comprising at least one node according to claim 12 (sensor assemblies 102, see rejection of Claim 12 above) and a cloud server according to claim 1 (computer system 104, see rejection of Claim 1, above).
Regarding Claim 14, Agarwal teaches a method for measurement of air borne particles (computer system 104, paragraph [0078], humidity, air quality, or air composition sensor), the method comprising the steps of: receiving first local environment data including data related to air borne particles from a plurality of nodes (Fig. 5, sensor assemblies 102); transmitting second local environment data to the plurality of nodes (end of paragraph [0043], server system can transmit a signal or instruction to the sensor assembly to inform the sensor assembly what features should be extracted, which is equated to second local environment data); receiving at least one first prediction of the local environment from at least one of the plurality of nodes (paragraph [0043], featurization module 112 determines or extracts features from sensor data; the featurized data would include trends, i.e., predictions, based on the sensor data); performing a second prediction of the local environment based on the first local environment data and the second local environment data (machine learning module 116 creates virtual sensor 118, which predicts various events that may occur; virtual sensor is equated to claimed second prediction); comparing the second prediction of the local environment with at least one of the first predictions of the local environment (virtual sensor 118 processes data from sensors 110, which would involve comparisons, paragraph [0035] and [0045]); and when a difference between the at least one of the first predictions and the second prediction is determined to exceed a threshold value (this claim feature is contingent, such that if the “when” clause evaluates to negative, i.e., when the difference does not exceed the threshold value, the requesting is not performed, see MPEP 2111.04(II); therefore, no patentable weight is given to this claim feature. It is recommended that Applicant amend the claim to positively recite performing this claim features, e.g., by changing “when” to “based on”. Further, this is taught in paragraph [0045], thresholds in the virtual sensors 118 are determined to characterize the training data; when the data from the sensor(s) exceeds a threshold, i.e. when the difference between the sensor data and a threshold in the virtual sensor 118 exceeds a minimal amount, which is equated to the claimed threshold value, it can be determined that an event has been detected), requesting updated first local environment data or transmitting updated second local environment data to at least one of the plurality of nodes (paragraph [0058], virtual sensor can subscribe to data streams from sensors based on event detection training being completed).
Agarwal does not specifically teach that the method is for assessing tree and forest health by measurement of tree communication through air borne particles. However, Kim teaches in Fig. 1 an integrated management server 190 in communication with a number of measuring devices 110 and 120 that assesses forest health through detection of phytoncides that are emitted by trees. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the phytoncide detection taught in Kim in a virtual sensor system such as is taught by Agarwal, in order to provide accurate phytoncide occurrence information to those who want to heal the forest, as well as those who want to enjoy forest tourism (see Kim, background section).
Regarding Claim 15, Agarwal teaches a method for measurement of air borne particles ((Fig. 5, sensor assemblies 102; paragraph [0078], humidity, air quality, or air composition sensor), the method comprising the steps of: sensing first local environment data including data related to air borne particles (Fig. 5, sensor assemblies 102); receiving second local environment data from a cloud server (end of paragraph [0043], server system can transmit a signal or instruction to the sensor assembly to inform the sensor assembly what features should be extracted, which is equated to second local environment data); performing a first prediction of the local environment based on the first local environment data and the second local environment data (paragraph [0043], featurization module 112 determines or extracts features from sensor data; the featurized data would include trends, i.e., predictions, based on the sensor data); transmitting the first local environment data to the cloud server (paragraph [0043], various features of sensor data may be transmitted to the computer system 104); and transmitting the first prediction of the local environment to the cloud server (paragraph [0043], featurization module 112 determines or extracts features from sensor data; the featurized data would include trends, i.e., predictions, based on the sensor data).
Agarwal does not specifically teach that the method is for assessing tree and forest health by measurement of tree communication through air borne particles. However, Kim teaches in Fig. 1 an integrated management server 190 in communication with a number of measuring devices 110 and 120 that assesses forest health through detection of phytoncides that are emitted by trees (i.e., the measuring devices 110 are in the vicinity of trees). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the phytoncide detection taught in Kim in a virtual sensor system such as is taught by Agarwal, in order to provide accurate phytoncide occurrence information to those who want to heal the forest, as well as those who want to enjoy forest tourism (see Kim, background section).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal in view of Kim and Kishino et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0109727, hereinafter “Kishino”).
Regarding Claim 6, Agarwal in view of Kim teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 4. Agarwal does not specifically teach wherein the determination which data requires updating is done such that the data transmitted from the cloud server to the at least one node of the plurality of nodes is minimized. However, Agarwal does teach transmitting data from a server to a plurality of nodes (end of paragraph [0043]). Further, Kishino teaches minimizing the amount of communication in a server/sensor system in paragraphs [0003] and [0008]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to minimize the data transmitted, as taught in Kishino, in the system of Agarwal, because it is preferable to minimize the amount of communication in consideration of power consumption and communication band (see Kishino, paragraph [0008]).
Regarding Claim 7, Agarwal in view of Kim teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 4. Agarwal does not specifically teach wherein the determination which data requires updating is done such that the data requested by the cloud server from at least one node of the plurality of nodes is minimized. However, Agarwal does teach requesting of data by a server node from a plurality of nodes (end of paragraph [0043]). Further, Kishino teaches minimizing the amount of communication in a server/sensor system in paragraphs [0003] and [0008]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to minimize the data transmitted, as taught in Kishino, in the system of Agarwal, because it is preferable to minimize the amount of communication in consideration of power consumption and communication band (see Kishino, paragraph [0008]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Although there are no prior art rejections for Claim 11, the Examiner cannot comment on its allowability until the rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 is satisfactorily addressed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Catherine T Rastovski can be reached at 571-270-0349. 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.
/CYNTHIA L DAVIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863