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
Status of Claims
This action is a Final action on the merits in response to the application filed on 01/20/2026.
Claims 1-10 have been amended. Claims 1 – 10 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been considered.
In the remarks Applicant argues, “That is, such claimed operations cannot simply be performed in the human mind or with pen or paper, and certainly do not merely relate to mathematical concepts contrary to the assertion in the Office Action” (pg. 15)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims encompass Mathematical Concepts related to mathematical calculations. For instance, limitations such as building a GDP spatialization model by performing grid division, calculating GDP per grid, assigning simulated GDP and obtaining GDP density map; measuring an increase or decrease of a specific variable over time using a regression equation and modifying a gravity model involve utilizing various equations for calculations (mathematical calculations).
Additionally, the claim encompass Mental Processes related to observation and evaluation of data.
Based on MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” Here, generic computer components (e.g. a processor and computing device) are performing generic computer functions such as capturing a first and second image and receiving data used to perform used to perform Step 1, Step 2 and Step 2 which involves collecting and analyzing data using mathematical operations.
Applicant argues, “ Indeed, the technical problem addressed by this technical solution was that "Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is one of the important indicators for measuring the development status and economic development level of a country or region.” (pgs. 15-16)
Examiner notes that the described problem is not a technically driven problem, but is considered a business problem driven by the lack of consideration of specific information (see Spec ¶0003). The claims are directed to abstract concepts and do not provide for a technical solution to a technical problem (DDR or McRO. As such, the claims appear to be directed to an improved business process for measuring changes in urban economic development characteristics. Further, there is no improvement in a technology (e.g. computer) or a technical field.
Applicant argues, “ Applicant submits that the claims are directed to a practical application of a judicial exception because they are directed to an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.” (pgs. 17-18)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a computer device comprising one or more processors. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (e.g. receiving and performing). Examiner notes that the Specification does not explicitly disclose a computer or a processor.
The steps of capturing a first image of a target area using VIIRS sensor of Suomi NPP satellite to obtain nighttime light data, capturing a second image of the target area by using landsat satellite to obtain land use data and receiving the nighttime light data and land use data by a computer device is considered data gathering activity. The limitations of step 1 includes the steps of building a GDP spatialization model including modeling spatialization of a primary industry output GDP with land use data, modeling spatialization of a secondary and tertiary industry output GDP, performing grid division on an administrative map, for each grid calculate industry output GDP (e.g. simulated GDP) and assigning each simulated GDP value to a pixel corresponding to the respective grid to obtain a GDP density map of target area involve analyzing data using mathematical operations (e.g. regression). The steps measuring an increase or a decrease of a specific variable over time (Step 2) and modifying a gravity model that reflects an economic linkage strength between cities (Step 3) involve complex mathematical operations using equations.
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Further, there is no indication in the Specification or the claims of an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself. The Specification does not explicitly disclose a computer, device or one or more processors.
Applicant argues, “ In particular, the claimed features employ a series of meaningful data transformations that fundamentally alter the nature of raw input data to create a new, useful, and non-abstract data product, e.g., a GDP density map. Such transformation integrates any alleged judicial exception into a practical application, providing an “inventive concepts”…” (pg.19)
In Bascom the court found that although the additional elements were generic computer elements when considered individually, when considered in combination an inventive concept was found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements. The claims in Bascom did not merely recite the abstract idea of
filtering content along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet, or to perform it on a set of generic computer components. The inventive concept is in the technical feature of network technology in a filtering system by associating individual accounts with their own filtering scheme and elements while locating the filtering.
Here, the generic computer components are performing capturing first and second image data, receiving image data and performing Steps 1, 2 and 3 which involve data manipulation (representation) through mathematical operations, which is generic computer functionality routinely performed by a computer which is routine and conventional activity. The independent claims do not amount to significantly more nor do they provide an inventive concept.
Applicant argues the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (pg. 21).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a processor and a computer device are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, the steps of capturing a first image of a target area, capturing a second image of a target area and receiving the data are considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The Specification does not provide any disclosure of the processor (or computer device) or that these generic computer elements are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decision (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites, “ receiving, by a computer device comprising one or more processors, the nighttime light data and the land use data; performing, by the computer device, operations comprising:…” at lines 8-10. The Specification does not explicitly disclose a computer device or one or more processors. As such the claim contains subject matter that was not described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey that at the time application was filed the inventor had possession of it. Claims 2-10 are rejected based on their dependency on Claim 1.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
step 1: building a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) spatialization model: spatializing GDP of an urban agglomeration region by using an industry-based modeling approach; modeling spatialization of a primary industry output GDP1 with land use data, and modeling spatialization of a secondary and tertiary industry output GDP23 by selecting an optimal light index based on the nighttime light data; performing grid division on an administrative map of the target area to obtain grids corresponding to pixels of the first image and the second image; for each of the grids, calculating the primary industry output GDP1 and the secondary and tertiary industry output GDP23 corresponding to each grid and a sum of the primary industry output GDPi and the secondary and tertiary industry output GDP23 for each grid as a simulated GDP value; and assigning each simulated GDP value to a pixel corresponding to the respective grid, so as to obtain a GDP density map of the target area;
step 2: measuring an increase or a decrease of a specific variable over time at a pixel level using trend analysis: … wherein θslope represents a slope of a univariate linear regression equation for year-to-year change of GDP in a corresponding time period at a current pixel, n represents a detection time span in years, and GDPi represents a GDP value of year i; and
step 3: modifying a gravity model that reflects an economic linkage strength between cities, comprising: modifying a gravity constant based on a ratio of comprehensive quality of one city to total comprehensive quality of two cities;
expressing a spatial distance between the cities as time distance; reflecting a degree of balance of economic and social development within each city by using a night light development index (NLDI); and for each city, using GDP and a reciprocal of the NLDI as a measure of comprehensive urban development quality: …is an economic linkage level between city i and city j;
The limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Mathematical Concepts related to mathematical calculations. For example, building a GDP spatialization model by performing grid division, calculating GDP per grid, assigning simulated GDP and obtaining GDP density map; measuring an increase or decrease of a specific variable over time using a regression equation and modifying a gravity model involves utilizing various equations for calculations. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Mathematical Concepts.
In addition, the claim could be seen as Mental Processes related to observation and evaluation of data. The limitations reasonably could be performed in the human mind or with a pen/paper.
The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas. For instance, Claim 2 is directed to modeling the spatialization of the primary industry output GDP1 with the land use data; Claims 3 and 4 are directed to modeling of the spatialization of the secondary and tertiary industry output GDP23; Claims 5 and 6 is directed to total nighttime light, average light intensity and compounded night light; Claim 6 is directed to retrieving calendar data (e.g. data collection), Claims 7 and 8 are directed to linear correction of GDP. Thus, the dependent claims further limit the abstract concepts found in the independent claims.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of a computer device comprising one or more processors. These are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions (e.g. receiving and performing). Examiner notes that the Specification does not explicitly disclose a computer or a processor.
The steps of capturing a first image of a target area using VIIRS sensor of Suomi NPP satellite to obtain nighttime light data, capturing a second image of the target area by using landsat satellite to obtain land use data and receiving the nighttime light data and land use data by a computer device is considered data gathering activity. The limitations of step 1 includes the steps of building a GDP spatialization model including modeling spatialization of a primary industry output GDP with land use data, modeling spatialization of a secondary and tertiary industry output GDP, performing grid division on an administrative map, for each grid calculate industry output GDP (e.g. simulated GDP) and assigning each simulated GDP value to a pixel corresponding to the respective grid to obtain a GDP density map of target area involve analyzing data using mathematical operations (e.g. regression). The steps measuring an increase or a decrease of a specific variable over time (Step 2) and modifying a gravity model that reflects an economic linkage strength between cities (Step 3) involve complex mathematical operations using equations.
Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a processor and a computer device are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amount to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception. Mere, instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, the steps of capturing a first image of a target area, capturing a second image of a target area and receiving the data are considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The Specification does not provide any disclosure of the processor (or computer device) or that these generic computer elements are anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decision (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 1-10 are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Lobell et al. (US 2023/0385738) discloses A first categorical model is generated. The first categorical model has a first geospatial dataset related to one or more of a set of economic activities, a set of infrastructure assets and a set of natural factors based on the historical observations including night light satellite image data.
Wu et al. (CN 113887974) discloses a comprehensive evaluation method of urban resource environment bearing force based on multi-source space data integration, specifically comprising: firstly constructing a multi-source space data set comprising remote sensing image, open source map service, social media information, geographic space information and statistical data as a whole, so as to determine the urban resource environment bearing force comprehensive evaluation index system.
Zhu et al., (Zhu X, Ma M, Yang H, Ge W. Modeling the Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Gross Domestic Product in China Using Extended Temporal Coverage Nighttime Light Data. Remote Sensing. 2017; 9(6):626. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9060626”), discloses Nighttime light data derived from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program’s Operational Linescan System (DMSP-OLS) in conjunction with the Soumi National Polar-Orbiting Partnership Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (NPP-VIIRS) for measuring the dynamics of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) at large scales including modelling the spatiotemporal dynamics of GDP.
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 of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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.
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 http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights