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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1: Claim 1 falls into the statutory category of method claims.
Step 2A-I: The claim recites the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm comprising the following steps:
Predicting a first scan type, in a set of scan types, for the stand of trees: based on historical scan profiles of geographic regions analogous to the geographic region; and based on the first set of visual features
Deriving an incline of a ground surface along the target pathway based on the second set of visual features
Transforming the set of environmental forecasts and the incline of the ground surface into a terrain quality
Calculating a first confidence score for completion of the target pathway by the operator, during the first time window, proportional to the terrain quality; and
In response to the first confidence score exceeding a threshold confidence score: generating a predicted timeline for a series of events corresponding to the scan order.
The claim also recites the abstract idea of a mental process comprising the following steps:
Projecting the geospatial boundary onto the first stored image
Extracting a first set of visual features representing a stand of trees, within the geospatial boundary, from the first stored image
Based on the first scan profile, constructing a target pathway, within the stand of trees, traversable by a first operator
Extracting a second set of visual features representing terrain characteristics along the target pathway, from a region of the first stored image.
A combination of abstract ideas is an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(I) – "Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract").
Step 2A-II: The claim does not integrate the recited mathematical algorithm and/or mental process into a practical application because the mere performance of the algorithm and/or mental process does not improve the outcome of applying a scan order in infrastructure engineering.
Step 2B: The claim recites the following additional elements:
Accessing a scan order for a geographic region via a user portal, the scan order defining: a geospatial boundary for the geographic region; and a target delivery date for execution of the scan order
Accessing a first stored image depicting the geographic region
Retrieving a first scan profile, from a set of scan profiles, corresponding to the first scan type and specifying a set of target metric types associated with the first scan type
Accessing a first set of environmental forecasts for the geographic region within a first time window prior to the target delivery date
In response to the first confidence score exceeding a threshold confidence score: aggregating the target metric types, the predicted timeline, and the target pathway into a specification for the scan order; and rendering the specification for the scan order within the user portal
However, additional element (a) constitutes a mere data gathering step, as the data accessed is required for the performance of the recited mathematical algorithm (generating a predicted timeline for a series of events corresponding to the scan order) and the recited mental process (projecting the geospatial boundary onto the first stored image). Similarly, additional element (b) constitutes mere data gathering, as the data accessed is required for the performance of the recited mental process (projecting the geospatial boundary onto the first stored image; extracting a first set of visual features representing a stand of trees, within the geospatial boundary, from the first stored image; extracting a second set of visual features representing terrain characteristics along the target pathway, from a region of the first stored image). Additional element (c) is only a mere data gathering step required for the performance of the recited mental process (based on the first scan profile, constructing a target pathway, within the stand of trees, traversable by a first operator). Additional element (d) also constituted a mere data gathering step required for the performance of the recited mathematical algorithm (extracting a second set of visual features representing terrain characteristics along the target pathway, from a region of the first stored image). Additional element (e) constitutes insignificant extra-solution data manipulation and display.
Furthermore, claims 2, 4-5, and 11-14 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1 and because they do not set forth any further additional elements that integrate the recited mathematical algorithm and/or mental process into a practical application or that amount to significantly more.
Claim 3
Step 1: Claim 3 falls into the statutory category of method claims.
Step 2A-I: The claim recites an abstract idea as it inherits the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, the claim further recites the abstract idea of a mode of organizing human activity comprising the following step:
Dispatching an operator carrying a mobile pack to the geographic region.
The claim subsequently recites a further mental process comprising the following steps:
Extracting a second set of visual features, representing a first set of heights of the first set of trees, from the first sequence of images;
Extracting a third set of visual features, representing a first set of base diameters of the first set of trees, from the second sequence of images.
The claim subsequently recites a further mathematical algorithm comprising the following step:
Calculating a tree-base-to-height ratio based on a first combination of the first set of heights and a second combination of the first set of diameters.
A combination of abstract ideas is an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(I) – "Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract").
Step 2A-II: The claim does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application because the mere performance thereof does not improve the outcome of applying a scan order in infrastructure engineering.
Step 2B: The claim recites the following additional elements:
During a first time period, transmitting the target pathway to the mobile pack for completion by the operator; and
During a second time period, at a computer system: accessing a first sequence of images, representing a first set of trees in a first scan zone, captured by a set of optical sensors arranged in the mobile pack while the operator navigates along a first segment of the target pathway proximal the first scan zone;
Accessing a second sequence of images, representing a second set of trees in a second scan zone, captured by the set of optical sensors while the operator navigates along a second segment of the target pathway proximal the second scan zone;
However, additional element (a) is mere data outputting step required for the performance of the recited abstract ideas and the additional elements (b) and (c), which are themselves mere data gathering steps required for the performance of the recited abstract ideas.
Claim 6
Step 1: Claim 6 falls into the statutory category of method claims.
Step 2A-I: The claim recites an abstract idea as it inherits the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, the claim recites a further mental process comprising the following steps:
In response to receiving confirmation of the specification within the user portal: scanning an operator database for a set of operators located within a threshold distance of the geographic region; and
Identifying an operator profile, in a set of operator profiles, affiliated with a second operator, in the set of operators, certified according to the first credential
In response to the first time window intersecting the time interval: assigning the second operator to the target pathway within the specification for the scan order; and
Updating the specification with the first set of contact information.
A combination of abstract ideas is an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(I) – "Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract").
Step 2A-II: The claim does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application because the mere performance thereof does not improve the outcome of applying a scan order in infrastructure engineering.
Step 2B: The claim recites the following additional elements:
Accessing a first credential required for operators completing scans, associated with the first scan type, within the geographic region;
Accessing a set of operator characteristics specified by the operator profile, the set of operator characteristics comprising: a time interval representing availability of the first operator to complete a scan within the geographic region; and a first set of contact information corresponding to the second operator
In response to the first time window intersecting the time interval: rendering the target pathway within an operator portal for completion by the second operator.
However, additional elements (a) and (b) are mere data gathering steps required for the performance of the recited abstract ideas and additional element (c) is insignificant extra-solution data display, and thus none of the recited additional elements amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, claim 7 is also rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 6 and because it does not recite any further additional elements that integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application or that amount to significantly more.
Claim 8
Step 1: Claim 8 falls into the statutory category of method claims.
Step 2A-I: The claim recites an abstract idea as it inherits the limitations of claim 6. Additionally, the claim recites a further mental process comprising the following step:
In response to the first time window falling outside of the time interval: defining a second time window intersecting the time interval
The claim subsequently recites a further mathematical algorithm comprising the following steps:
Transforming the second set of environmental forecasts and the incline of the ground surface into a second terrain quality; and
Calculating a second confidence score for completion of the target pathway by the second operator during the second time window proportional to the second terrain quality; and
In response to the second confidence score exceeding the threshold confidence score: generating a second predicted timeline for the series of events corresponding to the scan order.
A combination of abstract ideas is an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(I) – "Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract").
Step 2A-II: The claim does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application because the mere performance thereof does not improve the outcome of applying a scan order in infrastructure engineering.
Step 2B: The claim recites the following additional elements:
In response to the first time window falling outside of the time interval: accessing a second set of environmental forecasts for the geographic region during the second window;
In response to the second confidence score exceeding the threshold confidence score: appending the specification with the second predicted timeline;
Generating a notification to alert the user of delay for the scan order; and
Serving the notification and the specification within the user portal.
However, additional element (a) is mere data gathering required for the performance of the recited abstract ideas and therefore does not amount to significantly more. Additional element (b) does not amount to more than insignificant extra-solution data manipulation and thus is also not significantly more. Additional element (c) constitutes the generation of an alarm which has been recognized by the courts to be a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See Parker V. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978). From Page 595 – “Here it is absolutely clear that respondent's application contains no claim of patentable invention. The chemical processes involved in catalytic conversion of hydrocarbons are well known, as are the practice of monitoring the chemical process variables, the use of alarm limits to trigger alarms, the notion that alarm limit values must be recomputed and readjusted, and the use of computers for 'automatic monitoring alarming.’”). Additional element (d) constitutes insignificant extra-solution data display and similarly does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 9
Step 1: Claim 9 falls into the statutory category of method claims.
Step 2A-I: The claim recites an abstract idea as it inherits the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, the claim recites a further mathematical algorithm:
In response to receiving rejection of the first predicted timeline: transforming the initial set of environmental forecasts and the incline of the ground surface into an initial terrain quality; and
Calculating a second confidence score for completion of the target pathway by the second operator during the initial time window proportional to the initial terrain quality
In response to the second confidence score exceeding the threshold confidence score: generating a second predicted timeline for the series of events corresponding to the scan order.
A combination of abstract ideas is an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(I) – "Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract").
Step 2A-II: The claim does not integrate the recited mathematical algorithms and/or mental process into a practical application because the mere performance of the algorithms and/or mental process does not improve the outcome of applying a scan order in infrastructure engineering.
Step 2B: The claim recites the following additional elements:
Receiving a first set of user feedback associated with the specification depicting the first predicted timeline;
Accessing an initial set of environmental forecasts for the geographic region during an initial time window, preceding the first time window, corresponding to the first set of user feedback
Assembling the set of target metric types, the second predicted timeline, and the target pathway into a second specification for the scan order; and
Presenting the second specification to the user within the user portal.
However, additional elements (a) and (b) both constitute mere data gathering required for the performance of the further recited mathematical algorithm. Additional elements (c) and (d) also constitute insignificant extra-solution data manipulation and display. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, claim 10 is also rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 9 and because it does not set forth any further additional elements that integrate the recited mathematical algorithms and/or mental process into a practical application or that amount to significantly more.
Claim 15
Step 1: Claim 15 falls into the statutory category of method claims.
Step 2A-I: The claims recites a mathematical algorithm comprising the following steps:
During a first time period: predicting a scan type, in a set of scan types, for the geographic region based on visual features detected in the first stored image;
Calculating a confidence score for completion of the target pathway based on the set of environmental forecasts; and
In response to the confidence score exceeding a threshold confidence score: generating a predicted timeline for a series of events corresponding to the scan order.
The claim subsequently recites a mental process comprising the following step:
Constructing a target pathway within the geographic region based on the set of target metric types and based on the first stored image.
During a second time period: in response to receiving confirmation of the predicted timeline: scanning an operator database for a set of operators located within a threshold distance of the geographic region;
Identifying an operator profile, in a set of operator profiles, affiliated with a first operator, in the set of operators, certified according to the first credential;
In response to the first time window intersecting the time interval, assigning the first operator to the target pathway for the scan order
A combination of abstract ideas is an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(I) – "Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract").
Step 2A-II: The claim does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application because the mere performance thereof does not improve the outcome of applying a scan order in infrastructure engineering.
Step 2B: The claim recites the following additional elements:
Accessing a scan order for a geographic region, the scan order defining a target delivery date for execution of the scan order;
Accessing a first stored image depicting the geographic region;
Accessing a set of target metric types corresponding to the scan type;
Accessing a set of environmental forecasts for the geographic region during a time window prior to the target delivery date;
In response to the confidence score exceeding a threshold confidence score: rendering the predicted timeline within a user portal
During a second time period: in response to receiving confirmation of the predicted timeline: accessing a first credential required for operators completing scans, associated with the sampling type, within the geographic region; and
Accessing a set of operator characteristics specified by the operator profile, the set of operator characteristics comprising a time interval representing availability of the first operator to complete a scan within the geographic region.
However, additional elements (a)-(d) and (f)-(g) constitute mere data gathering steps required for the performance of the abstract ideas and thus do not amount to significantly more. Additional element (e) does not amount to more than insignificant extra-solution data display.
Furthermore, claims 17-18 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 15 and because they do not set forth any further additional elements that integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application or that amount to significantly more.
Claim 16
Step 1: Claim 16 falls into the statutory category of method claims.
Step 2A-I: The claim recites an abstract idea as it inherits the limitations of claim 15. Additionally, the claim recites a further mental process comprising the following steps:
In response to receiving the set of instructions specifying entry into the geographic region within the user portal: writing the set of instructions to the target pathway for the scan order; and
Assembling the predicted timeline, the set of target metric types, and the target pathway into a specification for the scan order.
A combination of abstract ideas is an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(I) – "Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract").
Step 2A-II: The claim does not integrate the recited abstract ideas into a practical application because the mere performance thereof does not improve the outcome of applying a scan order in infrastructure engineering.
Step 2B: The claim recites the following additional elements:
Prompting the user to define a set of instructions specifying entry into the geographic region within the user portal; and
In response to receiving the set of instructions specifying entry into the geographic region within the user portal: serving the specification and the set of instructions within an operator portal for execution by the first operator.
However, additional element (a) constitutes the presenting of an offer to the user, which the courts recognize does not go beyond that which is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) — “Below are examples of other types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: … Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.”). Additional element (b) does not amount to more than insignificant extra-solution data display.
Claim 19
Step 1: Claim 19 falls into the statutory category of method claims.
Step 2A-I: The claim recites the abstract idea of a mathematical algorithm comprising the following steps:
Based on a set on a set of visual features detected in the first stored image, predicting a scan type, in a set of scan types, for the stand of trees in the first stored image
Calculating a confidence score for completion of the target pathway by the operator based on the set of environmental forecasts; and
In response to the confidence score exceeding a threshold confidence score, generating a predicted timeline for a series of events corresponding to the scan order.
The claim also recites the following abstract idea of a mental process comprising the following steps:
Based on a set of visual features detected in the first stored image, identifying a stand of trees within the geographic region
Based on the scan profile, constructing a target pathway, within the stand of trees, traversable by an operator.
A combination of abstract ideas is an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(I) – "Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract").
Step 2A-II: The claim does not integrate the recited mathematical algorithm and/or mental process into a practical application because the mere performance of the algorithm and/or mental process does not improve the outcome of applying a scan order in infrastructure engineering.
Step 2B: The claim recites the following additional elements:
Accessing a scan order for a geographic region, the scan order defining a scan type for the geographic region and a target delivery date for execution of the scan order.
Accessing a first stored image depicting the geographic region
Retrieving a scan profile, from a set of scan profiles, corresponding to the scan type and specifying a set of target metric types associated with the scan type
Accessing a set of environmental forecasts for the geographic region within a time window preceding the target delivery date.
However, additional elements (a)-(d) all constitute mere data gathering required for the performance of the recited mathematical algorithm and/or mental process and therefore do not amount to significantly more.
Furthermore, claim 20 is also rejected by virtue of its dependence from claim 19 and because it does not set forth any further additional elements that integrate the recited mathematical algorithm and/or mental process into a practical application or that amount to significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 101, but would be allowable over the prior art pending the resolution of their eligibility rejections described above.
Claims 1-14
Claim 1 would be allowable because the closest prior art, Tham et al. (US 20220044475 A1, hereinafter Tham), Saxena et al. (US 20210232818 A1, hereinafter Saxena), Lieb et al. (US 20220215620 A1, hereinafter Lieb), and Dhaka et al. (US 20250094925 A1, hereinafter Dhaka) fail to fairly disclose, alone or in combination, a method comprising calculating a first confidence score for completion of a target pathway by an operator, during a first time window, proportional to a terrain quality; and in response to the first confidence score exceeding a threshold confidence score: generating a predicted timeline for a series of events corresponding to a scan order; aggregating target metric types, the predicted timeline, and the target pathway into a specification for the scan order; and rendering the specification for the scan order within a user portal. Claims 2-14 would also be allowable by virtue of their dependence from what would be allowable subject matter.
Claims 15-18
Claim 15 would be allowable because the closest prior art, Tham, Saxena, Lieb, and Dhaka fail to fairly disclose, alone or in combination, a method comprising, during a first time period, calculating a confidence score for completion of a target pathway based on a set of environmental forecasts; and in response to the confidence score exceeding a threshold confidence score: generating a predicted timeline for a series of events corresponding to a scan order; and rendering the predicted timeline within a user portal. Claims 16-18 would also be allowable by virtue of their dependence from what would be allowable subject matter.
Claims 19-20
Claim 19 would be allowable because the closest prior art, Tham, Saxena, Lieb, and Dhaka fail to fairly disclose, alone or in combination, a method comprising: calculating a confidence score for completion of the target pathway by the operator based on the set of environmental forecasts; and in response to the confidence score exceeding a threshold confidence score, generating a predicted timeline for a series of events corresponding to the scan order. Claim 20 would also be allowable by virtue of its dependence from what would be allowable subject matter.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure:
Modugula et al. (US 20230259798 A1), Systems and Methods for Automatic Environmental Planning and Decision Support Using Artificial Intelligence and Data Fusion Techniques on Distributed Sensor Network Data
Okazaki (US 20210142123 A1), Platform, Systems, and Methods for Identifying Property Characteristics and Property Feature Conditions Through Aerial Imagery Analysis
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN JAMES STEAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8334. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 EST/EDT.
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 Vazquez can be reached at (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 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.
/RYAN JAMES STEAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ARLEEN M VAZQUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights