DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's response to the last Office Action, filed on 6/18/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 11, and 14 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The following highlighted elements in claims 1, 11, 14 are vague and indefinite because physical locations fitting criteria is not defined and therefore it is unclear what is consistent with the criteria;
“…remotely identifying physical locations fitting criteria…
identifying… at least one candidate location, which is consistent with the criteria.”
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8, 10-14, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Smith et al. (US 2007/0273558) in view of Zhang (US 2019/0138849) in view of Streem et al. (US 2023/0400327).
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches a method for remotely identifying physical locations fitting criteria, the method comprising: obtaining, by a processing unit, source input data from one or more external data sources, the source input data including geospatial weather data (see figure 12, para. 0015-0016, 0153, Smith discusses weather data);
obtaining, by the processing unit, satellite imagery (see figure 12, para. 0011, 0153, 0263, Smith discusses satellite imagery);
producing, by the processing unit, refreshed three-dimensional and mosaic data corresponding to the digital earth (see figure 12, para. 0065, 0133, 0152, 0201, Smith discusses updating database with 3D data and mosaic data to update the digital earth).
Zhang teaches pre-processing and normalizing, by the processing unit, the source input data and the satellite imagery to form a digital earth (see figure 2, para. 0021-0022, 0047, Zhang discusses preprocessing and normalizing satellite imagery data to update a digital earth model; see para. 0021, Zhang discusses 3D data of the digital earth).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Smith with Zhang to derive at the invention of claim 1. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform geospatial terrain analysis.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Smith in this manner in order to improve geography terrain analysis by creating a three dimensional digital representation environment to continuously update a plurality of image data and accurately represent changes in environment data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Smith, while the teaching of Zhang continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of creating an accurate real-time 3D visualization map of terrain data and adjusting data by normalizing obtained data and using artificial intelligence to identify object feature data and changes in object feature data. The Smith and Zhang systems perform geospatial visualization, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Streem teaches performing, by the processing unit, geospatial analysis of the refreshed three-dimensional and mosaic data based upon the criteria (see para. 0142, Streem discusses performing visual analysis of a 3D world terrain and visual features); and
identifying, by the processing unit, from the geospatial analysis, at least one candidate location, which is consistent with the criteria (see para. 0142, Streem discusses identifying object position attributes, object embedding vector attributes, object visual feature attributes).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Smith and Zhang with Streem to derive at the invention of claim 1. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform geospatial terrain analysis.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Smith and Zhang in this manner in order to improve geography terrain analysis by creating a three dimensional digital representation environment to continuously update a plurality of image data and accurately represent changes in environment data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Smith and Zhang, while the teaching of Streem continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of creating an accurate real-time 3D visualization map of terrain data and adjusting data by normalizing obtained data and using artificial intelligence to identify object feature data and changes in object feature data. The Smith, Zhang, and Streem systems perform geospatial visualization, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 2, Smith and Streem teach further comprising displaying a three-dimensional image of the at least one candidate location (see para. 0015, Smith discusses 3D navigation of the digital earth; see figure 7, Streem discusses displaying three dimensional image data).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 2. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Smith and Zhang with Streem to derive at the invention of claim 2. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform geospatial terrain analysis.
Regarding claim 3, Smith and Streem teach further comprising monitoring, by the processing unit, the at least one candidate location to identify activity occurring at the at least one candidate location (see para. 0015, Smith discusses 3D navigation of the digital earth that visualizes activity in different locations; see para. 0142, Streem discusses identifying object position attributes, object embedding vector attributes, object visual feature attributes).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 3. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Smith and Zhang with Streem to derive at the invention of claim 3. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform geospatial terrain analysis.
Regarding claim 4, Smith teaches wherein monitoring, by the processing unit, the at least one candidate location comprises satellite tasking (see figure 12, para. 0070, Smith discusses identifying object data via satellite imagery).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 4. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Smith and Zhang with Streem to derive at the invention of claim 4. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform geospatial terrain analysis.
Regarding claim 5, Streem teaches, wherein the satellite tasking is performed at a predefined interval (see para. 0038, 0146, Streem discusses satellite imagery in real time and time information associated with data).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 5. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Smith and Zhang with Streem to derive at the invention of claim 5. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform geospatial terrain analysis.
Regarding claim 6, Streem teaches wherein performing geospatial analysis comprises object recognition (see para. 0142, Streem discusses identifying object position attributes, object embedding vector attributes, object visual feature attributes).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 6. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Smith and Zhang with Streem to derive at the invention of claim 6. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform geospatial terrain analysis.
Regarding claim 7, Streem teaches wherein performing geospatial analysis comprises implementing a machine learning or artificial intelligence algorithm to identify a feature of interest (see para. 0153, 0176, 0182, Streem discusses neural network performing feature extraction and object detection).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 7. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Smith and Zhang with Streem to derive at the invention of claim 7. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform geospatial terrain analysis.
Regarding claim 8, Smith teaches further comprising providing an alert in an event that a change is detected (see para. 0008, Smith discusses displaying updated map data).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 8. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Smith and Zhang with Streem to derive at the invention of claim 8. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform geospatial terrain analysis.
Regarding claim 10, Streem teaches wherein the at least one candidate location comprises a plurality of candidate locations, and the method further includes determining, using a calculator, which of the plurality of candidate locations fits the criteria (see para. 0153, 0176, 0182, Streem discusses neural network performing feature extraction and object detection).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 10. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Smith and Zhang with Streem to derive at the invention of claim 10. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform geospatial terrain analysis.
Claim 11 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Claim 12 is rejected as applied to claim 2 as pertaining to a corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Claim 13 is rejected as applied to claim 3 as pertaining to a corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Regarding claim 14, Smith teaches a computer system for remotely identifying physical locations fitting criteria, the computer system comprising:
an input configured to receive two-dimensional data from at least one satellite and three-dimensional data corresponding to a plurality of candidate locations and to store the two-dimensional data and the three-dimensional data at the non-transitory storage medium (see para. 0065, Smith discusses two-dimensional data and the three-dimensional data);
the source input data including geospatial weather data (see figure 12, para. 0015-0016, 0153, Smith discusses weather data);
a display (see para. 0008, Smith discusses displaying data); and
perform geospatial analysis of the refreshed three-dimensional and mosaic data based upon the criteria (see figure 12, para. 0065, 0133, 0152, 0201, Smith discusses updating database with 3D data and mosaic data to update the digital earth).
Zhang teaches a non-transitory storage medium having an artificial intelligence algorithm for performing geospatial analysis (see para. 0010, Smith discusses machine-learning for image analysis);
a processor communicatively coupled to the non-transitory storage medium and carry out instructions stored on the non-transitory storage medium to: pre-process and normalize source input data and the two-dimensional data and the three-dimensional data satellite imagery to form a digital earth (see figure 2, Zhang discusses preprocessing and normalizing image and point cloud data),
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Smith with Zhang to derive at the invention of claim 14. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform geospatial terrain analysis.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Smith in this manner in order to improve geography terrain analysis by creating a three dimensional digital representation environment to continuously update a plurality of image data and accurately represent changes in environment data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Smith, while the teaching of Zhang continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of creating an accurate real-time 3D visualization map of terrain data and adjusting data by normalizing obtained data and using artificial intelligence to identify object feature data and changes in object feature data. The Smith and Zhang systems perform geospatial visualization, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Streem teaches produce refreshed three-dimensional and mosaic data corresponding to the digital earth (see para. 0142, Streem discusses performing visual analysis of a 3D world terrain and visual features); and
identify at least one candidate location, which is consistent with the criteria, and display the at least one candidate locations on the display (see para. 0142, Streem discusses identifying object position attributes, object embedding vector attributes, object visual feature attributes).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Smith and Zhang with Streem to derive at the invention of claim 14. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform geospatial terrain analysis.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Smith and Zhang in this manner in order to improve geography terrain analysis by creating a three dimensional digital representation environment to continuously update a plurality of image data and accurately represent changes in environment data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Smith and Zhang, while the teaching of Streem continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of creating an accurate real-time 3D visualization map of terrain data and adjusting data by normalizing obtained data and using artificial intelligence to identify object feature data and changes in object feature data. The Smith, Zhang, and Streem systems perform geospatial visualization, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 16, Streem teaches wherein the processor is further configured to send a signal directing satellite tasking to produce the refreshed three-dimensional and mosaic data corresponding to the digital earth (see para. 0146, Streem discusses updating 3D map data).
The same motivation of claim 14 is applied to claim 16. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Smith and Zhang with Streem to derive at the invention of claim 16. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform geospatial terrain analysis.
Regarding claim 17, Streem teaches wherein the processor is further configured to monitor the at least one candidate location to identify activity occurring at the at least one candidate location (see para. 0146, Streem discusses updating 3D map data).
The same motivation of claim 14 is applied to claim 17. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Smith and Zhang with Streem to derive at the invention of claim 17. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform geospatial terrain analysis.
Regarding claim 18, Streem teaches wherein the processor is further configured to monitor the at least one candidate location by sending a signal to perform additional satellite tasking (see para. 0031, 0146, Streem discusses updating 3D map data based on satellite image data).
The same motivation of claim 14 is applied to claim 18. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Smith and Zhang with Streem to derive at the invention of claim 18. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform geospatial terrain analysis.
Regarding claim 19, Streem teaches wherein the input further comprises an archive of scouted locations (see para. 0031, 0146, Streem discusses updating 3D map data based on satellite image data).
The same motivation of claim 14 is applied to claim 19. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Smith and Zhang with Streem to derive at the invention of claim 19. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform geospatial terrain analysis.
Regarding claim 20, Streem teaches wherein the processor is further configured to monitor the candidate locations by modifying a timing of satellite tasking (see para. 0031, 0146, Streem discusses updating 3D map data based on satellite image data).
The same motivation of claim 14 is applied to claim 20. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Smith and Zhang with Streem to derive at the invention of claim 20. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform geospatial terrain analysis.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2007/0273558) in view of Zhang (US 2019/0138849) in view of Streem et al. (US 2023/0400327) in view of Boardman et al. (US 2022/0301192).
Regarding claim 9, Smith, Zhang, and Streem do not expressly disclose wherein identifying at least one candidate locations comprises: receiving geospatial data associated with a plurality of locations; receiving external data associated with the plurality of locations; constructing, by the processing unit, a digital twin based upon the geospatial data; performing, by the processing unit, geospatial analysis using the digital twin; and updating, by the processing unit, the digital twin via satellite tasking.
However, Boardman teaches wherein identifying at least one candidate locations comprises: receiving geospatial data associated with a plurality of locations (see para. 0127, Boardman discusses identifying object data via satellite imager);
receiving external data associated with the plurality of locations (see para. 0143, 0145-0164, Streem discusses 3D one world terrain map database of the entire planet earth);
constructing, by the processing unit, a digital twin based upon the geospatial data (see para. 0143, 0145-0164, Streem discusses 3D one world terrain map database of the entire planet earth and generating a 3D world map);
performing, by the processing unit, geospatial analysis using the digital twin (see para. 0073, 0143, 0145-0146, Streem discusses 3D one world terrain map database of the entire planet earth and generating a 3D world map); and
updating, by the processing unit, the digital twin via satellite tasking (see para. 0107, 0127, Boardman discusses displaying changes in the earth 3D model via satellite imagery; see para. 0146, Streem discusses updating 3D map data).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Smith, Zhang, and Streem with Boardman to derive at the invention of claim 9. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform geospatial terrain analysis.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Smith, Zhang, and Streem in this manner in order to improve geography terrain analysis by creating a three dimensional digital representation environment to continuously update a plurality of image data and accurately represent changes in environment data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Smith, Zhang, and Streem, while the teaching of Boardman continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of creating an accurate real-time 3D visualization map of terrain data and adjusting data by normalizing obtained data and using artificial intelligence to identify object feature data and changes in object feature data. The Smith, Zhang, Streem, and Boardman systems perform geospatial visualization, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2007/0273558) in view of Zhang (US 2019/0138849) in view of Streem et al. (US 2023/0400327) in view of Chen et al. (US 2023/0386132).
Regarding claim 15, Smith, Zhang, and Streem do not expressly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to display spatial statistics in the form of histograms and heatmaps regarding object detection results on the display. However, Chen teaches wherein the processor is further configured to display spatial statistics in the form of histograms and heatmaps regarding object detection results on the display (see figure 1B, para. 0204, Chen discusses presenting metrics as a heatmap of base diameters, and as a histogram).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Smith, Zhang, and Streem with Chen to derive at the invention of claim 15. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform geospatial terrain analysis.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Smith, Zhang, and Streem in this manner in order to improve geography terrain analysis by creating a three dimensional digital representation environment to continuously update a plurality of image data and accurately represent changes in environment data. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Smith, Zhang, and Streem, while the teaching of Streem continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of creating an accurate 3D visualization map of terrain data and adjusting data by normalizing obtained data and using artificial intelligence to identify object feature data and changes in object feature data. The Smith, Zhang, Streem, and Chen systems perform geospatial visualization, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights