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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDSs) submitted on 09/28/2023 and 03/20/2024 were in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because 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.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A system for managing/monitoring a natural ecosystem, comprising:
an input unit receiving basic information of a target area as an object to be managed or monitored, management or monitoring plan data of an ecosystem in the target area, environment data including measurement data, and ecosystem data;
a storage unit storing the input data and process data;
a process unit processing data; and
an output unit outputting data, wherein the process unit calculates a deviation between the management or monitoring plan data which is input in the input unit with respect to the target area and the environment data and the ecosystem data, and
in the case where the deviation is equal to or smaller than a predetermined threshold, stores the environment data and the ecosystem data regarding the target area into the storage unit and,
in the case where the deviation is larger than the predetermined threshold, outputs the deviation, and the environment data and the ecosystem data of the target area from the output unit.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Step 1: under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (Process).
Step 2A, Prong One: under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
For example, the limitation of “the process unit calculates a deviation between the management or monitoring plan data which is input in the input unit with respect to the target area and the environment data and the ecosystem data, and in the case where the deviation is equal to or smaller than a predetermined threshold, stores the environment data and the ecosystem data regarding the target area into the storage unit and, in the case where the deviation is larger than the predetermined threshold, outputs the deviation, and the environment data and the ecosystem data of the target area from the output unit” are mathematical calculations. The calculation deviation between the record and the plane is indicative of mathematical calculations (see paras. [0035], [0039]-[0040]).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, none of the additional elements indicate a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: a system for managing/monitoring a natural ecosystem (preamble); a input unit; a storage unit; a process unit; output unit.
The additional elements of “a system for managing/monitoring a natural ecosystem, a input unit, a storage unit, a process unit, output unit are recited at a high-level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further note that the step of receiving basic information of a target area as an object to be managed or monitored, management or monitoring plan data of an ecosystem in the target area, environment data including measurement data, and ecosystem data is insignificant solution activity (post-solution) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (Taylor, Nagano (JP201426507A), Mageale (US 2018/0010817A1)). For example, Taylor, Nagano, and Mageale teach a system for managing/monitoring a natural ecosystem (paras. [0033], [0037] of Taylor; page 5, lines 28-44 of Nagano, paras. [0054]-[0055], [0089] of Mageale). Therefore, there is no showing of integration into a practical application such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, or use of a particular machine. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claims 2-8,
All features recited in these claims are abstract ideas, as all features found in these claims are directed towards insignificant solution activity and/or mathematical calculations steps. The explanation for the rejection of Claims 2-8 therefore are incorporated herein and applied to Claim 1. These claims therefore stand rejected for similar reasons as explained in above Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US 2022/0124963 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Taylor”) (cited in IDS dated March 20, 2024) further in view of Kawasaki et al. (WO 2022/163864 A1, hereinafter referred to as “Kawasaki”).
Regarding claim 1, Taylor teaches a system for managing/monitoring a natural ecosystem (para. [0033], [0047]), comprising:
an input unit receiving basic information of a target area as an object to be managed or monitored, management or monitoring plan data of an ecosystem in the target area, environment data including measurement data, and ecosystem data (paras. [0056], [0058]-[0086]);
a storage unit storing the input data (Fig. 8, 804) and process data (Fig. 8, 802);
a process unit processing data (Fig. 8, 802); and
an output unit outputting data (para. [0037]: outcomes 114), wherein the process unit (Fig. 8, 802) calculates a deviation between the management or monitoring plan data which is input in the input unit (para. [0032]: soil Health Data Fabric 102 ) with respect to the target area and the environment data and the ecosystem data (para. [0032]: For accurate soil quality assessment, soil health indicators need to be measured to reach the goals of improving soil health, note that “soil quality assessment with the goals of improving soil health” reads on “calculates a deviation between the management or monitoring plan data which is input in the input unit with respect to the target area and the environment data and the ecosystem data”); and
environment data (paras. [0038], [0040]: environmental related data) and the ecosystem data (paras. [0043],[0047]: ecosystem related data).
Taylor does not specifically teach that in the case where the deviation is equal to or smaller than a predetermined threshold, stores the data regarding the target area into the storage unit and, in the case where the deviation is larger than the predetermined threshold, outputs the deviation, and the data of the target area from the output unit.
However, Kawasaki teaches that in the case where the deviation is equal to or smaller than a predetermined threshold, stores the data regarding the target area into the storage unit (page 10, lines 34- page 11, line 1: the processing unit 140 are stored in each unit of the storage unit 110) and,
in the case where the deviation is larger than the predetermined threshold (page 14, lines 20-25: Step S26 and Step 27), outputs the deviation, and the data of the target area (page 20, lines 23-25: extraction unit 141 may extract each parameter as a high-impact parameter if the difference or ratio between the two post-change calculated values is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold; page 14, lines 29-31: after the extraction process is performed, the parameters that can be finally output) from the output unit (Fig. 3, output unit 160).
Taylor and Kawasaki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of information processing system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the deviation such as is described in Kawasaki into Taylor, in order to provide an information processing device, an information processing method, and a recording medium that output information regarding the ground object parameters within a predetermined area (Kawasaki, page 3, lines 20-21).
Regarding claim 2, Taylor in view of Kawasaki teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Taylor teaches that at the time of storing the environment data (paras. [0038], [0040]: environmental related data) and the ecosystem data (paras. [0043],[0047]: ecosystem related data) regarding the target area into the storage unit (Fig. 8, 804), attribute data according to value criteria of biodiversity is linked (para. [0039]: agricultural service partners cutting-edge scientific analysis that identifies the key field attributes driving crop yield.; para. [0152]-[0153], [0157]).
Regarding claim 3, Taylor in view of Kawasaki teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Taylor teaches environment data (paras. [0038], [0040]: environmental related data) and the ecosystem data (paras. [0043],[0047]: ecosystem related data).
Taylor does not specifically teach that in the case where the deviation is larger than the predetermined threshold, and when there is appropriateness in a cause for that the deviation is larger than the predetermined threshold, the data and the ecosystem data regarding the target area is stored in the storage unit.
However, Kawasaki teaches that in the case where the deviation is larger than the predetermined threshold (page 14, lines 20-25: Step S26 and Step 27), and when there is appropriateness in a cause (page 17, line 27: by appropriately setting the threshold according to the purpose) for that the deviation is larger than the predetermined threshold (page 20, lines 23-25: extraction unit 141 may extract each parameter as a high-impact parameter if the difference or ratio between the two post-change calculated values is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold), the data regarding the target area is stored in the storage unit (page 20, lines 3-4: The extraction unit 341 causes the extraction information storage unit 315 to store extraction information that can specify the extracted high-impact parameter).
Taylor and Kawasaki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of information processing system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the deviation such as is described in Kawasaki into Taylor, in order to provide an information processing device, an information processing method, and a recording medium that output information regarding the ground object parameters within a predetermined area (Kawasaki, page 3, lines 20-21).
Regarding claim 4, Taylor in view of Kawasaki teaches all the limitation of claim 3, in addition, Taylor teaches that at the time of storing the environment data (paras. [0038], [0040]: environmental related data) and the ecosystem data (paras. [0043],[0047]: ecosystem related data) regarding the target area into the storage unit (Fig. 8, 804), attribute data according to value criteria of biodiversity is linked (para. [0039]: agricultural service partners cutting-edge scientific analysis that identifies the key field attributes driving crop yield.; para. [0152]-[0153], [0157]).
Regarding claim 5, Taylor in view of Kawasaki teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Taylor does not specifically teach that the deviation is larger than the predetermined threshold, and when there is no appropriateness in a cause for that the deviation is larger than the predetermined threshold, any one of re-examination of a management or monitoring plan for the target area, re-examination of a measuring method, and re-execution of measuring activity is performed.
However, Kawasaki teaches that the deviation is larger than the predetermined threshold (page 14, lines 20-25: Step S26 and Step 27), and when there is no appropriateness in a cause for that the deviation is larger than the predetermined threshold, any one of re-examination of a management or monitoring plan for the target area, re-examination of a measuring method, and re-execution of measuring activity is performed (page 21, lines 4-18: the uncertainty evaluation unit 349).
Taylor and Kawasaki are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same filed of information processing system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the deviation such as is described in Kawasaki into Taylor, in order to provide an information processing device, an information processing method, and a recording medium that output information regarding the ground object parameters within a predetermined area (Kawasaki, page 3, lines 20-21).
Regarding claim 6, Taylor in view of Kawasaki teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Taylor teaches that a retrieval result by attribute of data stored in the storage unit or a retrieval result by a layer at the time of dividing input data into layers is output by the output unit (para. [0039]: agricultural service partners cutting-edge scientific analysis that identifies the key field attributes driving crop yield; para. [0155]: both local servers 702 and remote servers 703 from which input data may automatically be retrieved and entered on behalf of the Soil Health Data Fabric Platform 101; para. [0157]: customers 706 may communicate with the DLT or blockchain 707 technologies to store or retrieve data).
Regarding claim 7, Taylor in view of Kawasaki teaches all the limitation of claim 1, in addition, Taylor teaches that the storage unit stores a format of an application document (paras. [0139]-[0143]: immutable ledger), data stored in the storage unit is written in the format (paras. [0139]-[0143]: immutable ledger), and the resultant is output by the output unit (para. [0172]: allowing for a large number of different outputs to be produced by the hash function in pursuit of an output that meets the standard of proof 755).
Regarding claim 8, Taylor in view of Kawasaki teaches all the limitation of claim 2, in addition, Taylor teaches that a method of linking attribute data according to a value criterion of biodiversity (para. [0039]: agricultural service partners cutting-edge scientific analysis that identifies the key field attributes driving crop yield; para. [0047]: ecosystem modes, note that the above feature of “the key field attributes driving crop yield” in para. [0039] and “ecosystem modes” in para. [0047] reads on “attribute data according to a value criterion of biodiversity”) at the time of storing data in the storage unit (para. [0157]: data is stored and persisted utilizing DLT or blockchain 707 technologies is performed by blockchain (para. [0157]: data is stored and persisted utilizing DLT or blockchain 707 technologies).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suzuki et al. (WO 2023095624 A1) teaches the present technology relating to a program, an information processing device, and an information processing method for making it possible to specify, among a huge amount of components of biological system information, a component useful to evaluate a state of a biological system.
Tomoko et al. (JP 2014026507 A) teaches an information processing apparatus outputs an evaluation list, which is a list of a plurality of ecological system services different from each other, and which contains information indicative of one or more parameters used in an evaluation method for an economic value that is selected, for each of ecological system services, to the ecological system service.
Chang et al. (CN 110033187 A) teaches that the method involve obtaining target area index data request. A target area is obtained based on target area index data request. An ecological system model for wide target area is selected by sensitivity analysis and applicability analysis. The selected model of ecosystem needed target area of environmental data is obtained.
Chen et al. (CN 113570272 A) teaches that the method involves obtaining basic data of a city ecological system. An initial evaluation index system is determined according to the basic data. A weight of each initial evaluating index is obtained. A current evaluation function of the city ecological system is established. A city ecological situation is obtained A relationship of a function and a judging standard are evaluated according to the city ecological system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, LEE RODARK can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858