This Office action is in response to amendment filed on 7/30/2026.
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 .
Response to Amendments
The amendments filed on 7/30/2026 to the specification and claims are entered.
Claims 2-3 have been canceled.
Claims 1 and 4-14 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 7/30/2026 have been fully considered.
The specification is amended and accepted. Thus, the objection to the specification is withdrawn.
Applicant amended claims 1, 5-8, and 14. Thus, the objections to claims 1, 5-8, and 14 are withdrawn.
Applicant amended claims 1, 7-9, and 14. Thus, the 112(b) rejection to claims 1, 7-9, and 14 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the claims do not merely
recite observing information, evaluating information, or making a judgment that could practically be performed in the human mind. Rather, the claims require a vegetation management system that acquires satellite images of power transmission line arrangement regions, divides those regions into partial regions, maintains machine-generated operational statuses associated with each partial region, formulates satellite image sensing plans and trimming work plans based upon those statuses, and trains a reinforcement-learning agent to determine an execution order for trimming work. These operations are performed using computer-based processing of satellite imagery and machine-learning techniques applied to geographically distributed transmission-line infrastructure and cannot practically be performed mentally. Likewise, the Examiner's characterization of the reinforcement-learning limitations as merely "organizing human activity" is inconsistent with the claim language. The claimed reinforcement-learning agent is not used to organize people or administer business practices. Rather, it is employed as a computational optimization technique for determining an execution order of vegetation-trimming operations.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims limitation “formulate a trimming work plan and a satellite image sensing plan based on the status” falls into both groupings of mental process: formulating the plan relies heavily on advanced cognitive functions (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), such as, problem solving, data synthesis, strategic planning, and decision making. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III; and organizing human activity because once the thoughts are structured, the plan translates into a coordinated, goal-oriented human endeavor, involving such as, resource allocation, collaboration, and standardized workflows. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II. Thus, Step 2A - prong One is yes.
The additional limitations, i.e., acquiring satellite images, collecting trimming work/order trimming work, are data gathering that is insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, these additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, Step 2A – prong Two is no.
Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant incorporated claims 2-3 into claims 1 and 14 and overcame the prior art rejection. Therefore, the prior art rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-10 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1,
line 11: “the acquisition” should read “[[the]]an acquisition,
lines 19-20, 22: “the plurality of partial regions” should read “the plurality of the partial regions”,
line 25: “the width direction corresponds” should read “the width direction orthogonal corresponds”,
line 32: “the sensing plan is formulated” should read “the satellite image sensing plan is formulated”.
Claim 5,
“partial region” should read “the partial region”.
Claim 6,
“a satellite image” should read “[[a]]the satellite image”.
Claim 7,
lines 3-4: “for a partial region in the shooting status, the partial region in the shooting status,
Claim 8,
“a partial rejoin” should read “[[a]]the partial region”.
Claims 9-10,
lines 3-4: “a row having a largest number of grids” should read “[[a]]the row having a largest number of the grids”.
Claim 11,
“a row” should read [[a]]the row.
Claim 13,
“the sensing plan” should be “the satellite image sensing plan”.
Claim 14,
line 11: “the acquisition of the satellite image” should read “[[the]]an acquisition of the satellite image”,
lines 12, 23, 25: “partial regions” should read “the partial regions”,
line 24: “handling risk” should read “handling the risk”,
line 28: “direction corresponds” should read “direction orthogonal correspond”,
line 35: the sensing plan” should read “the satellite image sensing plan”.
Note: claims 1, 5-10, and 14 include multiple informalities that require appropriate correction. The examiner has made an effort suggesting language to clarify the recited subject matter. Applicant should refer to these as examples of deficiencies and should make all the necessary correction to eliminate the claim objections. Applicant’s cooperation is kindly requested.
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 and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon,
or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the examiner submits that under Step 1 of the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (see also 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance) for evaluating claim for eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, the claims are to a system and method, which are one of the statutory categories of invention.
Regarding claim 1, continuing with the analysis, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test, the limitations (see Italic font below) of:
“A vegetation management system for managing vegetation around a power transmission facility, the vegetation management system comprising: a data acquisition unit configured to acquire at least a satellite image of a power transmission line arrangement region; a site work situation collection unit configured to collect a situation of a trimming work executed at a site of the power transmission line arrangement region; and a planning unit configured to divide the power transmission line arrangement region into a plurality of partial regions, manage a status relating to the trimming work and the acquisition of the satellite image in association with each of the plurality of partial regions, and formulate a trimming work plan and a satellite image sensing plan based on the status, wherein the status includes a non-shooting status in which the satellite image is not shot, a shooting status in which the satellite image is waiting to be acquired, a clear waiting status in which it is evaluated that there is a risk necessary to be cleared by executing the trimming work, and a cleared status indicating that the risk is cleared regardless of whether the satellite image is shot” falls into the grouping of mental processes, i.e., observation, evaluation, and decision-making; and
“the planning unit acquires an order of executing the trimming work on the plurality of partial regions by training an agent, an action of the agent being along a direction of progress of handling the risk by trimming, with reinforcement learning based on statuses of the plurality of partial regions” falls into the grouping of mathematical concepts, such as, “reinforcement learning” is machine learning governed by strict mathematical equations, “the statuses of plurality of partial regions”, i.e., are converted into grids represent the environment, “the action along a direction of progress” is defined vector, and the agent learns policy, i.e., mapping from states to actions, this is optimized using math.
“a partial region is a grid partitioned by an orbital direction of a satellite to be used for shooting the satellite image and a width direction orthogonal to the orbital direction, and a size of one grid in the width direction corresponds to an observation width of the satellite” falls into the grouping of mathematical concepts, i.e., satellite swath partitioning and image grid generation.
the planning unit performs the reinforcement learning by setting a reward with respect to a fact that all grids constituting a row in the orbital direction are in the cleared status before the grids are in the shooting status when the trimming work plan is formulated” falls into both groupings of mathematical concepts (i.e., executing a reinforcement learning model based on grid states, rewards), and mental processes (can be performed by human, decision-making, i.e., evaluating grid conditions and assigning point-based rewards).
“the planning unit excludes the row in which all the grids are cleared by the trimming work when the sensing plan is formulated” falls into the grouping of mathematical concepts, i.e., when formulating a satellite image sensing plan, the target area is discretized into a grid of planning units (pixels or blocks) to establish a data matrix.
Regarding claim 14, under Step 2A - Prong One of the test, the limitations (see Italic font below) of:
“A vegetation management method for managing vegetation around a power transmission facility, the vegetation management method comprising: performing, by a vegetation management system an acquisition step of acquiring at least a satellite image of a power transmission line arrangement region; a site work situation collection step of collecting a situation of a trimming work executed at a site of the power transmission line arrangement region; a planning step of dividing the power transmission line arrangement region into a plurality of partial regions, managing a status relating to a trimming work and the acquisition of the satellite image in association with each of the plurality of partial regions, and formulating a trimming work plan and a satellite image sensing plan based on the status” falls into the groupings of mathematical concepts, mental processes, i.e., dividing a physical or geographic region (math) and it can be using basis math, a paper and pencil, or inside human mind (observation, evaluation and decision-making), and organizing human activity, i.e., managing a workflow status (i.e., tracking trimming work, organizing data collection (tracking satellite imagery), and scheduling plans (formulating work and sensing timelines).
“an update step of updating the trimming work plan and the satellite image sensing plan by reflecting the situation of the trimming work executed at the site of the power transmission line arrangement region, wherein the status includes a non-shooting status in which the satellite image is not shot, a shooting status in which the satellite image is waiting to be acquired, a clear waiting status in which it is evaluated that there is a risk necessary to be cleared by executing the trimming work, and a cleared status indicating that the risk is cleared regardless of whether the satellite image is shot” falls into the grouping of mathematical concepts, i.e., recalculate the optimal path, time windows, and resource allocation.
“the planning step acquires an order of executing the trimming work on the plurality of partial regions by training an agent, an action of the agent being along a direction of progress of handling risk by trimming, with reinforcement learning based on statuses of the plurality of partial regions” falls into the grouping of mathematical concepts, such as, “reinforcement learning” is machine learning governed by strict mathematical equations, “the statuses of plurality of partial regions”, i.e., are converted into grids represent the environment, “the action along a direction of progress” is defined vector, and the agent learns policy, i.e., mapping from states to actions, this is optimized using math.
“a partial region is a grid partitioned by an orbital direction of a satellite to be used for shooting the satellite image and a width direction orthogonal to the orbital direction, and a size of one grid in the width direction corresponds to an observation width of the satellite” falls into the grouping of mathematical concepts, i.e., satellite swath partitioning and image grid generation.
“performing the reinforcement learning by setting a reward with respect to a fact that all grids constituting a row in the orbital direction are in the cleared status before the grids are in the shooting status when the trimming work plan is formulated” falls into both groupings of mathematical concepts (i.e., executing a reinforcement learning model based on grid states, rewards), and mental processes (can be performed by human, decision-making, i.e., evaluating grid conditions and assigning point-based rewards).
“excluding the row in which all the grids are cleared by the trimming work when the sensing plan is formulated” falls into the grouping of mathematical concepts, i.e., when formulating a satellite image sensing plan, the target area is discretized into a grid of planning units (pixels or blocks) to establish a data matrix.
Therefore, the claims recite a judicial exception under Step 2A - Prong One of the test.
Furthermore, under Step 2A - Prong Two of the test, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements recited in the claims:
Regarding claim 1 (see above limitation in non-Italic font under Prong-One is pasted here): “A vegetation management system for managing vegetation around a power transmission facility (generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, i.e., a vegetation management system for managing vegetation), the vegetation management system comprising: a data acquisition unit configured to acquire at least a satellite image of a power transmission line arrangement region; a site work situation collection unit configured to collect a situation of a trimming work executed at a site of the power transmission line arrangement region (recites extra-solution activities, mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source/type)”
Regarding claim 14 (see above limitation in non-Italic font under Prong-One is pasted here): “A vegetation management method for managing vegetation around a power transmission facility (generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, i.e., a vegetation management method for managing vegetation), the vegetation management method comprising: the vegetation management method comprising: performing, by a vegetation management system an acquisition step of acquiring at least a satellite image of a power transmission line arrangement region; a site work situation collection step of collecting a situation of a trimming work executed at a site of the power transmission line arrangement region (recites extra-solution activities, mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source/type).”
The additional limitations of the claims above are mere data gathering, i.e., acquiring and collecting data using appending units/system.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered individually and in
combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considering the claims as a whole. The claims are directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A of the test.
Additionally, under Step 2B of the test, claims 1 and 14 do not include additional elements that, when considered individually and in combination, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements:
recite extra-solution activities (i.e., mere data gathering), i.e., adding insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., a vegetation management system/method for managing vegetation) - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims, when considered as a whole, do not provide significantly more
under Step 2B of the test. Based on the analysis, the claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding the dependent claims 4-13, they are also directed to the non-statutory subject matter because:
they just extend the abstract idea of the independent claim by additional limitations (claims 4-13), that under the broadest interpretation in light of the specification, cover performance of the limitations using mathematical concepts, mental processes, and/or organizing human activity.
the additional elements recited in the dependent claims, when considered individually and in combination, refer to extra-solution activities and at a high level of generality, i.e., outputting the trimming work plan (claim 13) and used to facilitate the application of the abstract idea (claims 4-12), which as indicated in the Office's guidance does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A -Prong Two) and/or does not provide significantly more (Step 2B).
Examiner’s Notes
Claims 1 and 4-14 are considered novel and non-obvious subject matter with respect to the prior art but are presently rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as set forth in this Office Action. Please refer to the previous office action for an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to LYNDA DINH whose telephone number is (571) 270-
7150. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 AM - 6 PM ET.
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, Arleen M Vazquez can be reached on 571-272-2619. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the
Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LYNDA DINH/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
