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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant filed an amendment on 10/10/25. Claims 1-20 were pending. Claim 2 has been cancelled, claim 21 has been added, and claims 1 and 3-20 have been amended. After amendment, claims 1,3-21 are pending. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non-persuasive. This action is a Final Rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 19,20 contain “landscape metrics” what are landscape metrics? And how does one determine what metrics are to be input. Segment the land by ownership or ecological information, while the ecological aspect is defined the ownership choice is not defined. The claims could be interpreted broadly to be only based on the ownership aspect.
Claims 1, 19 and 20 fill in areas of the sensor data not measured. This element is taken to be extrapolate. The support 0043 for this element fill what is “not explicitly measured”. However, broadly speaking it should be clarified what is filling in and why is not int measured.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1,3-21 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b)
Claim 1 contains two instances of “a recommended treatment.” This limitation “recommended treatment” is unclear as they cannot both be introduced. The first is “a” the second is “the”. Secondly claims 10, 12, 14, 18 and 21 indicate the recommended treatment and in those cases there are two “a recommended treatments” to refer back to.
Applicant claims “in claims 1, 19 and 20 at least selecting a recommended treatment. However, it is unclear how to select a treatment based on the performance metrics. What metric and how does one make the selection. For that matter the selection is based on sites of interest which are not clear as one person’s interest might not be the same as another’s. Then the performance metric is not identified and how to select the treatment based on the performance method is also not known.
The term “the land” is intended to refer back to land. However, claim 1 contains “a land” and then the land, the land, the land, land designation, particular unit of the land, then claim 2 indicates “portions of the land” claim 5 the land, etc. are all these references to the land the same or different land.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner will assume there is only one land, one treatments, and that the “based on” is the equivalent of related to.
Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 3-18 and 21 are rejected because they depend on a rejected independent claim and do not correct the concern of the independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1,3-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without more.
Claims 1, 19 and 20 are independent.
For example Claim 1 is a method, claim 19 is a device and claim 20 is a non-transitory computer readable medium. Each claim is a directed to a statutory class.
However, it is noted that claim 1 a method is directed to a method without a computer or any specific hardware.
Here, the abstract elements of claim 1 are;
identifying a plurality of sites of interest in the land; segmenting the land into a plurality of units based on one or more of: ownership information or ecological information; identifying, for a particular unit of the plurality of units, a plurality of potential treatments; calculating a performance metric for each of the plurality of potential treatments to obtain a plurality of performance metrics for the particular unit, wherein each of the plurality of performance metrics is calculated based on one or more sites of interest located in the particular unit; and selecting the recommended treatment for the particular unit of the land from the plurality of potential treatments based on the plurality of performance metrics.
The technical elements of claim 1,19 and 20 are only found in the pre-ambles.
The limitations under their broadest reasonable interpretation covers the performance of the limitations as certain methods of organizing human activity and thus recites a fundamental economic practice. The claims are not even tied to one or more processors and are thus abstract. Even if they were to tie the claims to a processor they would not overcome this standard.
At this time the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
prong 2A prong 2 (no)
Step 2B, The claims do not contain additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered separately or as an ordered combination. They do not have inventive concept that allows the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims 2-18 do not further define the abstract idea to create a practical application. Thus claims 1-20 are not patent eligible.
Unfortunately the claims and specification are written without any obvious computing elements to recommend. However, adding computing elements plus a unique interface or some other computer improvement might result in overcoming 35 USC 101.
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) 1,3-21 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
US Patent Publication to Starr 20160309646 US Patent Publication to Fellers 20220172134
As per claim 1, Starr discloses;
receiving anthropogenic, (anthropogenic is anything related to humans, 0112)
physical, biologic, and sensor data comprising LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) data representing a landscape; Starr(0120, LIDAR and landscape 0135, topography, basically Anthropogenic data is something to do with humans including homes or structures, (farming) 0210 of applicant spec. could be anthropogenic) fills in areas of the sensor data not measured; Starr(0135,0136 interpolation of polynomials, and smoothing) See also Fellers(0077, in some cases the not measured, projected.. )
identifying a plurality of sites of interest in the land; segmenting the land into a plurality of units based on one or more of: ownership information or ecological information, wherein segmenting the land comprises: Starr(0083) [[j] segmenting the LiDAR data representing the landscape into a plurality of polygon units based on canopy height, Starr(0097) tree approximations, and forest structure;
Starr(0097, forest structure is a rather generic element… )
segmenting the plurality of polygon units into a plurality of polygon sub-units based on climate, topography, vegetation change, land designation, and/or ownership;
Starr(in regards to topography which is one of the segmental elements, 0045)
identifying, for a particular unit of the plurality of units, a plurality of potential treatments; calculating a performance metric for each of the plurality of potential treatments to obtain a plurality of performance metrics for the particular unit, Starr(0243)
wherein each of the plurality of performance metrics is calculated based on one or more sites of interest located in the particular unit; Starr(0197, one or more could be any, “interest” could be any)and selecting a[[the]] recommended treatment for the particular unit of the land from the plurality of potential treatments based on the plurality of performance metrics.
Starr(0243) Starr does not explicitly disclose what Fellers teaches;
transforming the sensor data using a trained machine-learned model,
Fellers(0040 machine learning by LIDAR 0041)
wherein the machine-learned model is trained through measurements of desired parameters, wherein the trained machine-learned model
Fellers(0040) Fellers(0150 sub units, it is noted that an/or is a choice, based on could by any of the choices) and populating the plurality of polygon sub-units with landscape metrics;
It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the ecology analysis of Starr with the Lidar teachings of Fellers for the motivation of “mitigating power grid (economic losses) by maintaining (managing) vegetation for example. (0003)
Claims 19 and 20 are similar to claim 1.
As per claim 3 Starr discloses; The method of claim 2, further comprising: generating, based on the received data, map data indicating ownership and special land designation status of a plurality of portions of the land.
(0117)
As per claim 4, Starr discloses; method of claim l wherein the one or more sites of interest include one or more of: primary residential structures, non-residential structures, emergency infrastructure, utility infrastructure, water resources infrastructure, communication infrastructure, critical access roads, fuel breaks, strategic fuel areas, areas of critical plant and animal species habitat, large tree groves, nest and den sites, cultural sites, recreational trails, campgrounds, special/unique ecological features, ecological commodities, or scientific monitoring sites. (0062, land for crops… this claim is a choice of many generic items)
As per claim 5, Starr discloses; The method of claim 1 , further comprising: performing disturbance assessment on the land to generate a plurality of disturbance maps corresponding to a plurality of disturbance types, wherein each of the plurality of disturbance maps includes one or more disturbance values for one or more sites of interest on the land. (0167-0176, basically a map with various environmental differentiation)
As per claim 6 Starr discloses; The method of claim 1 , further comprising: performing ecological function assessment on the land to determine treatment effects on the one or more sites of interest located in the particular unit, wherein each of the plurality of performance metrics for the particular unit is associated with the corresponding determined treatment effects. (0225 weather map)
As per claim 7 Starr discloses; method of claim 1 any of claims 1-6, wherein each of the plurality of units is owned by a single entity and has a uniform biophysical composition.
(0135)
As per claim 8 Starr discloses; The method of claim 1 , wherein the performance metric for each of the plurality of potential treatments is a treatment- specific restorative return on investment (RROI) value calculated by: calculating one or more site-specific RROI values for the one or more sites of interest located in the particular unit; and aggregating the one or more site-specific RROI values. (0197)
As per claim 9 Starr discloses; The computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein each of the one or more site-specific RROI values is calculated based on a site-specific post-disturbance value change, a site-specific post-treatment post-disturbance value change, and a site-specific change in disturbance effects. (0079)
As per claim 10 Starr discloses;
The method of claim 1, further comprising: calculating, for the recommended treatment, a contribution value of the recommended treatment for each of a plurality of objectives.
Starr(0089)
As per claim 9 Starr discloses; The method of claim 10, further comprising: obtaining one or more user inputs indicative of relative importance of the plurality of objectives.
Starr(0093)
As per claim 12 Starr discloses; The method of claim 1, further comprising: formulating a plan for implementing the selected recommended treatment; and displaying or automatically executing the plan. Starr (0217)
As per claim 13 Starr discloses; The method of claim 1, further comprising: applying pillar contribution values to the one or more sites of interests located in the particular unit, wherein each pillar contribution value is based on resilience of the one or more sites of interest located in the particular unit to the corresponding pillar. Starr(“based on” could be a little or a lot, 0085)
As per claim 14, Starr discloses; The method of claim 1 , wherein identifying the plurality of potential treatments and selecting the recommended treatment are performed for each of the plurality of units.
Starr(0111, 0197)
As per claim 15, Starr discloses; The method of claim 14, further comprising: receiving user inputs indicative of user selections of a plurality of scenarios, the plurality of scenarios associated with the plurality of units; and providing a visual comparison of the plurality of scenarios.
Starr(0111)
As per claim 16 Starr discloses;
The method of claim 15, wherein the user inputs further indicate priorities, the method further comprising: weighting the plurality of scenarios in accordance with the priorities.
Starr(0111, here the claim is relatively open ended… depends on the priority)
As per claim 17 Starr discloses; The method of claim 15 , wherein at least one of the plurality of scenarios comprises a scenario created by another user.
Starr(0111, in season scenarios)
As per claim 18 Starr discloses; method of claim 1 further comprising: administering the recommended treatment to the particular unit of the land.
Starr(0150)
As per claim 21 Starr discloses; The method of claim 13, further comprising: generating a map and/or a report comprising the recommended treatment for each of the plurality of units. Starr(0029, and/or is a choice)
Response to Arguments
Applicant filed an amendment on 10/10/25. Claims 1-20 were pending. Claim 2 has been cancelled, claim 21 has been added, and claims 1 and 3-20 have been amended. After amendment, claims 1,3-21 are pending. After careful consideration of applicant arguments and amendments, the examiner finds them to be moot and/or non-persuasive. This action is a Final Rejection.
Claim Objections – withdrawn and/or moot in view of amended. Replaced with updated concerns
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they are allegedly directed to an abstract idea without more. Applicant respectfully submits that representative amended claim 1 is not directed to any of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in the USPTO 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (the "2019 PEG"). Specifically, the amended claim 1 is not directed to any of the three groupings below: - Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity-fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
- Mental processes-concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). (2019 PEG, page 52.)
Amended claim 1 recites an ordered combination of steps directed to transforming sensor data using a machine-learned model trained via measurements of desired parameters, segmenting the land into polygon units based on canopy height, tree approximations, and forest structure, segmenting the polygon units into polygon sub-units based on climate, topography,
vegetation change, land designation, and/or ownership, among other things, that cannot be performed outside of a computer, let alone in the human mind. As described in Memorandum from Deputy Commissioner for Patents, Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under
35 U.S.C. 101, dated August 4, 2025 (the "Memorandum"),
"a claim does not recite a mental process when it contains limitation(s) that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations(s)." (Memorandum.) Amended claim 1 recites limitations that the human mind is not equipped to perform, such as "transforming the sensor data using a trained machine-learned model, wherein the machine-learned model is trained through measurements of desired parameters, wherein the trained machine-learned model fills in areas of the sensor data not measured, "segmenting the LiDAR data representing the landscape into a plurality of polygon units based on canopy height, tree approximations, and forest structure, "segmenting the plurality of polygon units into a plurality of polygon sub-units based on climate, topography, vegetation change, land designation, and/or ownership," and "populating the plurality of polygon sub-units with landscape metrics."
Further, amended claim 1 is directed to specific technical features, including a trained machine-learned model, transforming the sensor data using the trained machine-learned model to fill in areas of the sensor data not measured, and segmenting the LiDAR data into polygon units and polygon sub-units based on a variety of factors, which are not any of the aforementioned methods of organizing human activity.
Additionally, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, even if a claim recites an enumerated judicial exception, which the Applicant submits it does not, that claim is still "not 'directed to' the judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception." (2019 PEG, page 50.) If the claim is integrated into a practical application of the judicial exception, "then the claim is eligible at Prong Two of revised Step 2A. This concludes the eligibility analysis." (2019 PEG, page 54.) Under the 2019 PEG, exemplary considerations for integration into a practical application include:
-"[a]n additional element [that] reflects an improvement in the functioning of a
computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field" and
-"an additional element [that] applies or uses the judicial exception in some other
meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception." (2019 PEG, page 55.)
Amended claim 1 provides many technical improvements and solves many challenges in the field. For example, amended claim 1 describes "techniques for efficiently identifying recommended land treatments using an automated, uniform, consistent, and comprehensive approach and providing the recommended land treatments in an intuitive manner." (See [0017] of Specification as filed.) Further, "the plurality of units" may comprise "up to or more than hundreds of thousands" of units, thus the techniques of amended claim 1 can be applied to recommend land treatments for many units. (See [0023] of Specification as filed.) Additionally, amended claim 1 recites an ordered combination of steps directed to receiving data, transforming received sensor data using a trained machine-learned model, identifying sites of interest, segmenting the land into units, identifying potential treatments for a unit, calculating performance metrics for the potential treatments, and selecting a recommended treatment for the unit based on the performance metrics. Thus, amended claim 1 recites a specific combination of steps that go beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the alleged exception. Further, even assuming arguendo if amended claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception (which Applicant does not concede), amended
claim 1 integrates the alleged judicial exception into a practical application because it recites elements that reflect an improvement to a technology or technical field.
Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that claim 1 is patent eligible. Applicant
respectfully requests that the rejection of claim 1 and its dependents under 35 U.S.C § 101 be withdrawn. Applicant further requests that the rejections of independent claims 19 and 20 be withdrawn, at least because claims 19 and 20 contain limitations similar to claim 1.
Here applicant arguments are not persuasive for the current claims as presented. While not being able to perform the process in the mind may be a consideration the interpretation may be not as clear for processes that can theoretically be performed in the mind or manually. Otherwise, many of the financial process ideas would be eligible because they are not practically done in the mind. In regards to practical application, the practical application route may be ultimately persuasive. However, it’s not clear how the applicant is improving the technology itself, such as making the computer faster or more efficient. That said practical application may eventually be persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 102 – moot in view of new grounds of rejection in response to applicant amendments.
For example, Starr does not disclose or suggest (basically amended elements found in claim 1.
"transforming the sensor data using a trained machine-learned model, wherein the machine-learned model is trained through measurements of desired parameters, wherein the trained machine-learning model fills in areas of the sensor data not measured,
"segmenting the LiDAR data representing the landscape into a plurality of polygon units based on canopy height, tree approximations, and forest structure, "segmenting the plurality of polygon units into a plurality of polygon sub-units based on climate, topography, vegetation change, land designation, and/or ownership," or "populating the plurality of polygon sub-units with landscape metrics."
Here the argued amended portions are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. It was noted above that the and/or is a choice of any of the list. Further as per the objections, some of the algorithms and methods of selection are lacking in specific algorithm or methodology. For example, “landscape metrics” could be a lot of things. Clarification of the technical elements and the and/or, methodology etc. should help with overcoming 35 USC 103(a) and 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Locating Forest Management Units Using Remote Sensing and Geostatistical Tools in North-Central Washington, USA PMC 2020
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
A practice-led assessment of landscape restoration potential in a biodiversity hotspot, PMC 2022
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE I EBERSMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3442. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 5:00 pm Monday-Friday.
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, Michael W Anderson can be reached at 571-270-0508. 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.
/BRUCE I EBERSMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693