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 Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s assertions related to “Allowable Matter,” Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Claim 4 is amended to be written in independent form, claim 5 is amended commensurate with the amendment to claim 4, claim 7 is amended to depend from allowable claim 4, and claim 9 is cancelled without prejudice. Accordingly, claims 4, 5, and 7 are in condition for allowance.,” As can be seen in the Non-Final Office Action, Examiner stated that the claims are “allowable over the available field of prior art.” Examiner did not state that claims would be in condition for allowance. Furthermore, as can be seen with respect to 35 USC 101, claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 USC 101. Examiner notes, however, that claim 7, if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, would be deemed allowable.
Accordingly, claims 4, 5, and 7 are not allowed.
Regarding the claim objections, the present claim amendments are sufficient to overcome the claim objection of claim 7. Therefore, the claim objection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 USC 11(b) rejection, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments. Claim 3 has been canceled. Therefore, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Neither a human mind nor any human, using only pen and paper, can cause a reforestation machine to perform the planting of the plant body on the basis of the reforestation instruction signal, for example.,” Examiner has not stated that the limitations pertaining to the reforestation machine are part of the abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. Rather, these argued limitations are part of the additional elements for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 2 or Step 2B. Even assuming arguendo, there are several abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. See the detailed rejection below.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Moreover, the claimed invention provides a technical improvement to the function of the system itself (e.g., the claimed invention allows for establishing a reforestation plan in consideration of future forest work according to the terrain of the target area). In forestry, after reforestation, regular maintenance such as thinning is required for a long period until final felling, and it is necessary to establish a reforestation plan in consideration of future work such as maintenance and harvest. This was not possible prior to the conception of the present invention. Therefore, under the Enfish standard, this means that the claimed invention is not abstract as a whole. To allege that the claimed inventions are abstract even in view of Enfish is erroneous.,” Examiner respectfully asserts that an improvement of establishing a reforestation plan, under considerations of broadest reasonable interpretation of the present claims, would be an improvement to the abstract limitations for consideration under Step 2A, Prong 1. An improvement to a reforestation plan, as argued above, is not an improvement to the additional elements of the claim, or any other technology or technical field. MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”
With respect to Enfish, the present claims do not provide an analogous improvement to the computer to that of Enfish, specifically because the present claims do not improve the computer itself. The improvements of a self-referential table provide a specific benefit to the functioning of the computer, which is not the case in the claims of the instant application. The present claims are directed to generating a reforestation plan, which is not an improvement to the computer itself. Rather, this is an improvement to the abstract idea associated with “Mental Processes.”
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Assuming however if the independent claims are found to be directed to abstract ideas, it is combination are "well understood." For example, the Berkheimer case clearly states that to prove that something is "well understood" is a much higher burden than proving something is obvious, for example. (MPEP 2106.05(d); Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Therefore, if a claim is not obvious as a whole, it is unclear how it could ever be considered "well known" as a whole. As explained further herein, the claims are not obvious over any prior art, and at least because the claims include subject matter indicated as allowable by the Examiner.,” Examiner respectfully asserts that the evidence provided in the Step 2B rejection of certain additional elements of the claims was evidenced using MPEP 2106.05(d). In particular, Section 2106.05(d)(II) of the MPEP states that “receiving and transmitting data over a network,” and specifically “sending messages over a network,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. Therefore, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertions in view of Berkheimer due to the evidence provided from the MPEP.
Accordingly, the present claims are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection, Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Temple however, merely discloses distributing a grass seed to resist erosion in steep grade areas. Temple thus fails to teach that specifying an area having a gradient less than a gradient threshold value from a target area and planting of a plant body in the area are required.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in the Non-Final Office Action dated 11/26/2025, Examiner did not rely upon Temple in order to teach the limitations relating the threshold being “less than a gradient threshold.” As can be seen in the Non-Final Office Action dated 11/26/2025, Examiner did in fact rely upon the Flood reference, on at least Pgs. 12-13, in order to teach the argued limitations. Therefore, while Examiner has considered Applicant’s assertions, Applicant’s assertions are moot because Examiner did not rely upon Temple in order to teach the argued limitations.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion of “Also, in order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. (See, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Here, the technical field and problem to be solved by Temple are different from that of Van De Woestyne, meaning the references are not analogous and therefore cannot be combined. (See, MPEP 2141.01(A)(1)). Accordingly, a primafacie case of obviousness cannot be established.,” Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that the references are not from the same or similar field of endeavor. MPEP 2141.01(a)(I) discloses
“A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art.”
Van De Woestyne and Temple are deemed to be analogous art because the references are from the same field of endeavor because both Van De Woestyne and Temple are related to performing planting. In particular, both Van De Woestyne and Temple are related to performing planting in a manner that reduces damage due to natural causes (e.g. erosion, rainfall, etc.). Van De Woestyne states in at least [0022] that the selective replanting is performed in order to “avoid a reduction in crop growth and yield” due rain fall events or other weather conditions that cause “physical crop damage…caused by seed displacement.” Similarly, Temple discloses in at least Col 1 lines 28-34 & Col 10 lines 30-40 implementing cover crops to reduce “soil erosion” of the underlying surface. Therefore, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion and maintains the references are being from the same or similar field of endeavor.
Additionally, Examiner notes that the claims are rejected under a new grounds of rejection, which was necessitated by amendment. See the detailed rejection below.
Accordingly, the present claims are rejected under 35 USC 103.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Examiner suggests amending the claims for the sake of antecedence by reciting “including at least one of the reforestation area or a traveling route in the reforestation area for planting the plant body by [[a]]the reforestation machine…” Appropriate correction is required.
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, 4-5, and 10 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1 is directed to a system, claims 4-5 are directed to a system, and claim 10 is directed to a system. Therefore, the claims are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1, 4, and 10 recite specifying or determining an area, constituting an abstract idea based on “Mental Processes” related to concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. Claim 1 recites limitations including “acquire terrain data representing a terrain of a target area; specify a first area having a gradient less than a first gradient threshold value from the target area based on the terrain data; and specify a second area having a gradient equal to or greater than the first gradient threshold value.” Claim 4 recites limitations including “acquire terrain data representing a terrain of a target area; specify a first area having a gradient less than a first gradient threshold value from the target area based on the terrain data; and specify a third area having a gradient equal to or greater than the first gradient threshold value and less than a second gradient threshold value; generate a design plane of the third area where the gradient is less than the first gradient threshold value.” Claim 10 recites limitations including “acquire terrain data representing a terrain of a target area; specify a first area having a gradient less than a first gradient threshold value from the target area based on the terrain data; and determine a forest road area forming a forest road in the first area.” These limitations, as drafted, but for the recitation of the preamble, is a process that covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, but for the preamble language, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, with the exception of the preamble language, the claim steps in the context of the claim encompass a user mentally or manually performing the steps of the claim.
Dependent claims 5 further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and does not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claims 1, 4, and 10 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is directed to a system comprising “a reforestation planning device; and a reforestation machine; wherein the reforestation planning device includes: at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to” and “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to.” Claim 4 recites limitations including “a reforestation planning device; a reforestation machine; and an earthwork machine, wherein the reforestation planning device includes: at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to” and “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to.” Claim 10 recites limitations including “a reforestation planning device; and a reforestation machine; wherein the reforestation planning device comprises: at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Independent claim 1 further recites “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to transmit a reforestation instruction signal, which is a signal for instructing planting of a plant body in a reforestation area consisting of the first area, including at least one of the reforestation area or a traveling route in the reforestation area for planting the plant body by a reforestation machine” and “transmit, to the reforestation machine, a reforestation instruction signal for instructing planting of a first plant body of the plant body in the first area and planting of a second plant body of the plant body in the second area, wherein the reforestation machine is configured to perform the planting of the plant body on the basis of the reforestation instruction signal.” Claim 4 further recites “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to transmit a reforestation instruction signal, which is a signal for instructing planting of a plant body in a reforestation area consisting of the first area, including at least one of the reforestation area or a traveling route in the reforestation area for planting the plant body by a reforestation machine,” “transmit, to an earthwork machine, an earthwork instruction signal for instructing construction of the third area in accordance with the design plane” and “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit a reforestation instruction signal for instructing planting of a plant body in the third area after the construction in accordance with the design plane by the earthwork machine.” Claim 10 further recites limitations including “transmit a reforestation instruction signal, which is a signal for instructing planting of a plant body in a reforestation area consisting of the first area, including at least one of the reforestation area or a traveling route in the reforestation area for planting the plant body by a reforestation machine” and “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit, to the reforestation machine, the reforestation instruction signal for instructing the planting of the plant body in an area other than the forest road area in the first area.” These limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. This limitation merely recites receiving and/or sending data over a network, which is extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 4 further recites “and wherein the reforestation machine is configured to perform the planting of the plant body on the basis of the reforestation instruction signal” and “and the earthwork machine is configured to perform the construction on the basis of the earthwork instruction signal.” Claim 10 further recites limitations including “wherein the reforestation machine is configured to perform the planting of the plant body on the basis of the reforestation instruction signal.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental processes) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the additional elements can be interpreted, under consideration of the broadest reasonable interpretation, as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical field. The claim is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of endeavor, which does not improve the machinery itself. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to a particular environment, which is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the combination of additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 5 further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and does not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, the dependent claim, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, is not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claims 1, 4, and 10 does not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 1 is directed to a system comprising “a reforestation planning device; and a reforestation machine; wherein the reforestation planning device includes: at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to” and “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to.” Claim 4 recites limitations including “a reforestation planning device; a reforestation machine; and an earthwork machine, wherein the reforestation planning device includes: at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to” and “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to.” Claim 10 recites limitations including “a reforestation planning device; and a reforestation machine; wherein the reforestation planning device comprises: at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental process) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Independent claim 1 further recites “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to transmit a reforestation instruction signal, which is a signal for instructing planting of a plant body in a reforestation area consisting of the first area, including at least one of the reforestation area or a traveling route in the reforestation area for planting the plant body by a reforestation machine” and “transmit, to the reforestation machine, a reforestation instruction signal for instructing planting of a first plant body of the plant body in the first area and planting of a second plant body of the plant body in the second area, wherein the reforestation machine is configured to perform the planting of the plant body on the basis of the reforestation instruction signal.” Claim 4 further recites “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to transmit a reforestation instruction signal, which is a signal for instructing planting of a plant body in a reforestation area consisting of the first area, including at least one of the reforestation area or a traveling route in the reforestation area for planting the plant body by a reforestation machine,” “transmit, to an earthwork machine, an earthwork instruction signal for instructing construction of the third area in accordance with the design plane” and “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit a reforestation instruction signal for instructing planting of a plant body in the third area after the construction in accordance with the design plane by the earthwork machine.” Claim 10 further recites limitations including “transmit a reforestation instruction signal, which is a signal for instructing planting of a plant body in a reforestation area consisting of the first area, including at least one of the reforestation area or a traveling route in the reforestation area for planting the plant body by a reforestation machine” and “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit, to the reforestation machine, the reforestation instruction signal for instructing the planting of the plant body in an area other than the forest road area in the first area.” With respect to the Berkheimer court case, below can be found evidence provided by the Examiner that provides, based on 2B analysis, how the claims are viewed as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity for consistency with the Federal Circuit’s decision in Berkheimer and MPEP 2106.5(d). Section 2106.05(d)(II) of the MPEP states that “receiving and transmitting data over a network,” and specifically “sending messages over a network,” is a well-understood, routine, and conventional computer function. Therefore, this limitation is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4 further recites “and wherein the reforestation machine is configured to perform the planting of the plant body on the basis of the reforestation instruction signal” and “and the earthwork machine is configured to perform the construction on the basis of the earthwork instruction signal.” Claim 10 further recites limitations including “wherein the reforestation machine is configured to perform the planting of the plant body on the basis of the reforestation instruction signal.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., mental processes) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Alternatively, the additional elements can be interpreted, under consideration of the broadest reasonable interpretation, as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technical field. The claim is nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of endeavor, which does not improve the machinery itself. The claim employs generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to a particular environment, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Therefore, the combination of additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 5 further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and does not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the dependent claim, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1, 4-5, and 10 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van De Woestyne et al. (US 20210204467 A1) in view of Flood et al. (US 20190100309 A1) in view of Temple et al. (US 11419261 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Van De Woestyne teaches a reforestation system comprising (Fig. 8):
a reforestation planning device (Fig. 8 and [0072-0073] teach a remote server architecture 800 that is located at a remote location, wherein the seed planting machine accesses the systems of Fig. 4 through the remote server location, as well as in [0086-0088] teach computing devices that deploy the elements of Fig. 4; see also: [0074]); and
a reforestation machine (Fig. 4 and [0034] teach a seed planting machine, wherein [0024] teaches a machine that has a controller that is programmed to selectively trigger one or more replant control functions, as well as in [0032] teaches control logic of the specific agricultural machine that provides automatic guidance; see also: [0053-0054]);
wherein the reforestation planning device includes:
at least one memory storing instructions (Fig. 8 and [0072-0073] teach a remote server architecture 800 that is located at a remote location, wherein the seed planting machine accesses the systems of Fig. 4 through the remote server location, as well as in [0086-0088] teach computing devices that deploy the elements of Fig. 4; see also: [0074]), and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (Fig. 8 and [0072-0073] teach a remote server architecture 800 that is located at a remote location, wherein the seed planting machine accesses the systems of Fig. 4 through the remote server location, as well as in [0086-0088] teach computing devices that deploy the elements of Fig. 4; see also: [0074]),
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
acquire terrain data representing a terrain of a target area (Fig. 2 and [0029] teach a topographical data mapping of a field that includes a mathematical model of where slope changes occur and at what rate, as well as in [0044] teaches data can be receive by the map generator, wherein the data includes topographical data, as well as in [0059] teaches acquisition of macro field description and micro plant distribution data, wherein this data is utilized to generate a replanting map, and wherein [0026] teaches the topography of a field is often rough and irregular, wherein the controller is programmed to selectively trigger replant control functions by factoring in characteristics of the field topography into the control functions, wherein data can be gathered from a sensor, such as emerging plant locations ascertained from a photo, wherein any variable that impacts the extent or location of field damage may be considered and contemplated as a basis for programming the controller to make selections; see also: [0028-0029, 0032, 0053, 0097]);
specify a first area having a gradient less than a first gradient threshold value from the target area based on the terrain data (Fig. 2 and [0029] teach a topographical data mapping of a field that includes a mathematical model of where slope changes occur and at what rate, wherein [0040] teaches the macro replanting candidate areas are selected based on calculations using functions that include at least one characteristics of a topographical field feature, as well as in [0059] teaches generating a replanting map representing areas selected for planting based on micro or macro distribution data, wherein [0032] teaches guidance can be generated as to which areas of the field are likely good candidates for replanting and which are less likely to be so, wherein the seed planning machine be automatically controlled without an input from an operator; see also: [0028-0029, 0060, 0065]; Examiner’s Note: See the 35 USC 103 combination below for teachings pertaining to the unbolded claim language.); and
transmit a reforestation instruction signal (Fig. 8 and [0072-0073] teach the a seed planting machine 400 and a remote server architecture 800 that is located at a remote location, wherein the seed planting machine accesses the systems of Fig. 4 through the remote server location, wherein [0097] teaches a processor that receives a replanting map from a map generator, the replanting map designating a particular area in which it is recommended to add additional seeds, as well as in [0060] teaches the seed planting machine can receive all or a portion of the replanting map, which then influences functions performed by the machine, wherein [0032] teaches guidance can be generated as to which areas of the field are likely good candidates for replanting and which are less likely to be so, wherein the seed planning machine be automatically controlled without an input from an operator, as well as in [0040-0041] teach the macro replanting candidate areas are selected based on characteristics of topographical field features, wherein the seed planning machine can automatically drive itself to the reseeding candidate area based on navigational input, wherein a desirable path is identified and automatically factored in to guide the machine to the one or more candidate areas; see also: [0042]),
which is a signal for instructing planting of a plant body in a reforestation area consisting of the first area (Fig. 8 and [0072-0073] teach the a seed planting machine 400 and a remote server architecture 800 that is located at a remote location, wherein the seed planting machine accesses the systems of Fig. 4 through the remote server location, wherein [0097] teaches a processor that receives a replanting map from a map generator, the replanting map designating a particular area in which it is recommended to add additional seeds, as well as in [0060] teaches the seed planting machine can receive all or a portion of the replanting map, which then influences functions performed by the machine, wherein [0032] teaches guidance can be generated as to which areas of the field are likely good candidates for replanting and which are less likely to be so, wherein the seed planning machine be automatically controlled without an input from an operator, as well as in [0040-0041] teach the macro replanting candidate areas are selected based on characteristics of topographical field features, wherein the seed planning machine can automatically drive itself to the reseeding candidate area based on navigational input, wherein a desirable path is identified and automatically factored in to guide the machine to the one or more candidate areas; see also: [0042]),
including at least one of the reforestation area or a traveling route in the reforestation area for planting the plant body by a reforestation machine (Fig. 8 and [0072-0073] teach the a seed planting machine 400 and a remote server architecture 800 that is located at a remote location, wherein the seed planting machine accesses the systems of Fig. 4 through the remote server location, wherein [0097] teaches a processor that receives a replanting map from a map generator, the replanting map designating a particular area in which it is recommended to add additional seeds, as well as in [0060] teaches the seed planting machine can receive all or a portion of the replanting map, which then influences functions performed by the machine, wherein [0032] teaches guidance can be generated as to which areas of the field are likely good candidates for replanting and which are less likely to be so, wherein the seed planning machine be automatically controlled without an input from an operator, wherein [0101] teaches a route that is calculate to be an optimized path between multiple separate areas in the field that include the designated area, as well as in [0040-0041] teach the macro replanting candidate areas are selected based on characteristics of topographical field features, wherein the seed planning machine can automatically drive itself to the reseeding candidate area based on navigational input, wherein a desirable path is identified and automatically factored in to guide the machine to the one or more candidate areas; see also: [0042]),
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
transmit, to the reforestation machine, a reforestation instruction signal for instructing planting of a first plant body of the plant body in the first area and planting of a second plant body of the plant body in the second area ([0042] teaches the processor of the machine is configured to facilitate guidance of the machine to and even efficiently between two or more macro replanting candidate areas in a planted field, wherein a precise level of replanting guidance can be provided to the machine for performing replanting in the candidate area, wherein [0032-0033] teach the system can automatically guide the machine to perform the replanting by automatically taking full control of the one or more functions of the seed planting machine without input from the operator expressing approval for taking the control automatically, wherein the programmatic logic can effectuate operations based on a recommended replanting path through a field, wherein [0036] teaches the macro field description of field characteristics is provided from the map generator such that the features of the macro field description are calculated into the details of the replanting map, wherein the macro field description is retrieved from the remote analysis system, wherein [0039-0040] teach generating a replanting map including a designation of field areas that are selected based on the characteristics of a topographical field feature, wherein the macro candidate areas include areas 308 and 310, as well as 304, and wherein [0073] teaches the map generator 406, systems 416 and 418 and storage 420 are located in the same remote server location, wherein the seed planting machine accesses those systems through the remote server location; see also: [0038, 0049]),
wherein the reforestation machine is configured to perform the planting of the plant body on the basis of the reforestation instruction signal (Fig. 8 and [0072-0073] teach the a seed planting machine 400 and a remote server architecture 800 that is located at a remote location, wherein the seed planting machine accesses the systems of Fig. 4 through the remote server location, wherein [0097] teaches a processor that receives a replanting map from a map generator, the replanting map designating a particular area in which it is recommended to add additional seeds, as well as in [0060] teaches the seed planting machine can receive all or a portion of the replanting map, which then influences functions performed by the machine, wherein [0032] teaches guidance can be generated as to which areas of the field are likely good candidates for replanting and which are less likely to be so, wherein the seed planning machine be automatically controlled without an input from an operator, wherein [0038] teaches the macro field description is utilized to support where the ideal locations to move the machine and conduct targeted replanting operations, as guided by a generated version of the replanting map, as well as in [0040-0041] teach the macro replanting candidate areas are selected based on characteristics of topographical field features, wherein the seed planning machine can automatically drive itself to the reseeding candidate area based on navigational input, wherein a desirable path is identified and automatically factored in to guide the machine to the one or more candidate areas; see also: [0039, 0042]).
While Van De Woestyne teaches specifying a first area having a gradient from the target area based on the terrain data, Van De Woestyne does not explicitly teach specify a first area having a gradient less than a first gradient threshold value; specify a second area having a gradient equal to or greater than the first gradient threshold value.
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Flood teaches specify a first area having a gradient less than a first gradient threshold value ([0076] teaches slope identification logic is configured to analyze information to perform a slope identification assessment for the worksite, wherein the slope threshold logic generates a threshold value of ground slop, wherein the threshold value of ground slope can include a ratio of vertical rise to run, an angle of ground surface, or any other value that can be compared to a sensed or obtained measure of slope, which is gradient or pitch, of the worksite area, wherein the logic can identify particular sub-areas within the worksite area having a slope that exceeds the threshold value, wherein [0069] teaches generating instructions that allow the machine to perform an operation along a less steep slope, as well as in [0117] teach the machine and slop consideration logic can suggest a machine travel route based on the generated slope mapping and the identified threshold value of the ground slope of the forestry worksite, wherein [0120] teaches the slope identification logic can, prior to an operation being performed, utilize a UAV system to measure slope of worksite, and thus identify areas having a slope greater than a threshold slope to update a travel route for avoiding large slopes, which can be used to improve machine efficiency due to less slippage, as well as in [0128] teaches identifying problem areas of a work site having a steep slope above a threshold, and updating travel routes of the machine based on verified slope information; see also: [0027, 0077, 0105-0106, 0122]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van De Woestyne to incorporate the teachings of Flood to include specify a first area having a gradient less than a first gradient threshold value. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve machine efficiency because machines experience less slippage and produce less damage to the worksite area, thereby also improving productivity of operations (Flood, [0120]). By incorporating the teachings of Flood, one would have been able to improve productivity of a worksite by identifying problem-areas of a worksite having a steep slope above a threshold and updating travel routes of a work machine based on slope information (Flood, [0128]).
However, the combination of Van De Woestyne and Flood does not explicitly teach specify a second area having a gradient equal to or greater than the first gradient threshold value.
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Temple teaches specify a second area having a gradient equal to or greater than the first gradient threshold value (Col 9 lines 52-64 the sensing assembly includes a grade sensor that identifies the orientation of the harvest assembly as it travels along the underlying surface, wherein the controller may communicate with the grade sensor to identify the current grade of the harvesting assembly, wherein the harvesting assembly may distribute material such as cover crop seed from the distribution assembly when the grade is greater than a grade threshold, wherein the cover crop may be applied when the grade is greater than a grade threshold to resist erosion in steep grade areas of the underlying surface, wherein Col 10 lines 9-21 teach the controller may also instruct the distribution assembly on how much and what material to distribute, which could be many different varieties that are distributed to the underlying surface, as well as in Col 10 lines 30-40 teach a second variety of the distribution assembly may be a grass, wherein the grass seed is a second variety that may be implemented by the distribution assembly to reduce erosion, wherein if the grade sensor identifies a grade greater than a preset grade threshold, the distribution assembly may distribute a grass seed from the second variety to reduce erosion of the underlying surface; see also: Col 11 lines 39-57, Col 13 lines 22-39).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Van De Woestyne and Flood to incorporate the teachings of Temple to include specify a second area having a gradient equal to or greater than the first gradient threshold value. One would have been motivated to do so in order to apply a cover crop seed when the grade is greater than a grade threshold in order to resist erosion in steep grade areas of the underlying surface (Temple, Col 9 lines 52-63). By incorporating the teachings of Temple, one would have been able to automatically apply grass cover crop seed of a given variety based on the grade threshold being greater than a grade threshold (Temple, Col 13 lines 22-39).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Van De Woestyne, Flood, and Temple teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Van De Woestyne further teaches wherein the reforestation machine includes: a planting device that plants a plant body into soil ([0004] teaches a seed machine that can activate and deactivate, or raise and lower, planter equipment while performing the seeding process, as well as in [0048] teaches the processor can facilitate automated transition of a physical planting equipment apparatus that is part of the machine into a raised non-planting position or into a lowered active planting position; see also: [0049-0050, 0062]),
the planting device including a frame configured to hold the plant body and an actuator configured to lift and lower the frame ([0004] teaches a seed machine that can activate and deactivate, or raise and lower, planter equipment while performing the seeding process, as well as in [0048] teaches the processor can facilitate automated transition of a physical planting equipment apparatus that is part of the machine into a raised non-planting position or into a lowered active planting position; see also: [0049-0050, 0062]),
a control device that causes the planting device to plant the plant body and the traveling device to travel an area indicated by the reforestation instruction signal (Fig. 4 and [0034] teach a seed planting machine, wherein [0024] teaches a machine that has a controller that is programmed to selectively trigger one or more replant control functions, as well as in [0032] teaches control logic of the specific agricultural machine that provides automatic guidance, wherein [0057-0058] teach the processor can guide the machine; see also: [0053-0054]),
the control device including at least one memory storing instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (Fig. 4 and [0034] teach a seed planting machine, wherein [0024] teaches a machine that has a controller that is programmed to selectively trigger one or more replant control functions, as well as in [0032] teaches control logic of the specific agricultural machine that provides automatic guidance, wherein [0057-0058] teach the processor can guide the machine; see also: [0053-0054]).
However, Van De Woestyne does not explicitly teach a traveling device that travels together with the planting device.
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Flood further teaches a traveling device that travels together with the planting device (Figs. 1-2A and [0041] teach a controllable subsystem including a propulsion system that includes an engine that drives ground engaging wheels or tracks via a powertrain mechanism, wherein [0036] teaches a mobile machine including a propulsion system; see also: [0038-0040]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Van De Woestyne, Flood, and Temple to incorporate the further teachings of Flood to include a traveling device that travels together with the planting device. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve machine efficiency because machines experience less slippage and produce less damage to the worksite area, thereby also improving productivity of operations (Flood, [0120]). By incorporating the teachings of Flood, one would have been able to improve productivity of a worksite by identifying problem-areas of a worksite having a steep slope above a threshold and updating travel routes of a work machine based on slope information (Flood, [0128]).
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van De Woestyne et al. (US 20210204467 A1) in view of Kondekar et al. (US 20210015029 A1) in view of Flood et al. (US 20190100309 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Van De Woestyne teaches a reforestation system comprising (Fig. 8):
a reforestation planning device (Fig. 8 and [0072-0073] teach a remote server architecture 800 that is located at a remote location, wherein the seed planting machine accesses the systems of Fig. 4 through the remote server location, as well as in [0086-0088] teach computing devices that deploy the elements of Fig. 4; see also: [0074]); and
a reforestation machine (Fig. 4 and [0034] teach a seed planting machine, wherein [0024] teaches a machine that has a controller that is programmed to selectively trigger one or more replant control functions, as well as in [0032] teaches control logic of the specific agricultural machine that provides automatic guidance; see also: [0053-0054]);
wherein the reforestation planning device comprises:
at least one memory storing instructions (Fig. 8 and [0072-0073] teach a remote server architecture 800 that is located at a remote location, wherein the seed planting machine accesses the systems of Fig. 4 through the remote server location, as well as in [0086-0088] teach computing devices that deploy the elements of Fig. 4; see also: [0074]), and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (Fig. 8 and [0072-0073] teach a remote server architecture 800 that is located at a remote location, wherein the seed planting machine accesses the systems of Fig. 4 through the remote server location, as well as in [0086-0088] teach computing devices that deploy the elements of Fig. 4; see also: [0074]), wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
acquire terrain data representing a terrain of a target area (Fig. 2 and [0029] teach a topographical data mapping of a field that includes a mathematical model of where slope changes occur and at what rate, as well as in [0044] teaches data can be receive by the map generator, wherein the data includes topographical data, as well as in [0059] teaches acquisition of macro field description and micro plant distribution data, wherein this data is utilized to generate a replanting map, and wherein [0026] teaches the topography of a field is often rough and irregular, wherein the controller is programmed to selectively trigger replant control functions by factoring in characteristics of the field topography into the control functions, wherein data can be gathered from a sensor, such as emerging plant locations ascertained from a photo, wherein any variable that impacts the extent or location of field damage may be considered and contemplated as a basis for programming the controller to make selections; see also: [0028-0029, 0032, 0053, 0097]);
specify a first area having a gradient less than a first gradient threshold value from the target area based on the terrain data (Fig. 2 and [0029] teach a topographical data mapping of a field that includes a mathematical model of where slope changes occur and at what rate, wherein [0040] teaches the macro replanting candidate areas are selected based on calculations using functions that include at least one characteristics of a topographical field feature, as well as in [0059] teaches generating a replanting map representing areas selected for planting based on micro or macro distribution data, wherein [0032] teaches guidance can be generated as to which areas of the field are likely good candidates for replanting and which are less likely to be so, wherein the seed planning machine be automatically controlled without an input from an operator; see also: [0028-0029, 0060, 0065]; Examiner’s Note: See the 35 USC 103 combination below for teachings pertaining to the unbolded claim language.); and
transmit a reforestation instruction signal (Fig. 8 and [0072-0073] teach the a seed planting machine 400 and a remote server architecture 800 that is located at a remote location, wherein the seed planting machine accesses the systems of Fig. 4 through the remote server location, wherein [0097] teaches a processor that receives a replanting map from a map generator, the replanting map designating a particular area in which it is recommended to add additional seeds, as well as in [0060] teaches the seed planting machine can receive all or a portion of the replanting map, which then influences functions performed by the machine, wherein [0032] teaches guidance can be generated as to which areas of the field are likely good candidates for replanting and which are less likely to be so, wherein the seed planning machine be automatically controlled without an input from an operator, as well as in [0040-0041] teach the macro replanting candidate areas are selected based on characteristics of topographical field features, wherein the seed planning machine can automatically drive itself to the reseeding candidate area based on navigational input, wherein a desirable path is identified and automatically factored in to guide the machine to the one or more candidate areas; see also: [0042]),
which is a signal for instructing planting of a plant body in a reforestation area consisting of the first area (Fig. 8 and [0072-0073] teach the a seed planting machine 400 and a remote server architecture 800 that is located at a remote location, wherein the seed planting machine accesses the systems of Fig. 4 through the remote server location, wherein [0097] teaches a processor that receives a replanting map from a map generator, the replanting map designating a particular area in which it is recommended to add additional seeds, as well as in [0060] teaches the seed planting machine can receive all or a portion of the replanting map, which then influences functions performed by the machine, wherein [0032] teaches guidance can be generated as to which areas of the field are likely good candidates for replanting and which are less likely to be so, wherein the seed planning machine be automatically controlled without an input from an operator, as well as in [0040-0041] teach the macro replanting candidate areas are selected based on characteristics of topographical field features, wherein the seed planning machine can automatically drive itself to the reseeding candidate area based on navigational input, wherein a desirable path is identified and automatically factored in to guide the machine to the one or more candidate areas; see also: [0042]),
including at least one of the reforestation area or a traveling route in the reforestation area for planting the plant body by a reforestation machine (Fig. 8 and [0072-0073] teach the a seed planting machine 400 and a remote server architecture 800 that is located at a remote location, wherein the seed planting machine accesses the systems of Fig. 4 through the remote server location, wherein [0097] teaches a processor that receives a replanting map from a map generator, the replanting map designating a particular area in which it is recommended to add additional seeds, as well as in [0060] teaches the seed planting machine can receive all or a portion of the replanting map, which then influences functions performed by the machine, wherein [0032] teaches guidance can be generated as to which areas of the field are likely good candidates for replanting and which are less likely to be so, wherein the seed planning machine be automatically controlled without an input from an operator, wherein [0101] teaches a route that is calculate to be an optimized path between multiple separate areas in the field that include the designated area, as well as in [0040-0041] teach the macro replanting candidate areas are selected based on characteristics of topographical field features, wherein the seed planning machine can automatically drive itself to the reseeding candidate area based on navigational input, wherein a desirable path is identified and automatically factored in to guide the machine to the one or more candidate areas; see also: [0042]),
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: wherein the reforestation machine is configured to perform the planting of the plant body on the basis of the reforestation instruction signal (Fig. 8 and [0072-0073] teach the a seed planting machine 400 and a remote server architecture 800 that is located at a remote location, wherein the seed planting machine accesses the systems of Fig. 4 through the remote server location, wherein [0097] teaches a processor that receives a replanting map from a map generator, the replanting map designating a particular area in which it is recommended to add additional seeds, as well as in [0060] teaches the seed planting machine can receive all or a portion of the replanting map, which then influences functions performed by the machine, wherein [0032] teaches guidance can be generated as to which areas of the field are likely good candidates for replanting and which are less likely to be so, wherein the seed planning machine be automatically controlled without an input from an operator, wherein [0038] teaches the macro field description is utilized to support where the ideal locations to move the machine and conduct targeted replanting operations, as guided by a generated version of the replanting map, as well as in [0040-0041] teach the macro replanting candidate areas are selected based on characteristics of topographical field features, wherein the seed planning machine can automatically drive itself to the reseeding candidate area based on navigational input, wherein a desirable path is identified and automatically factored in to guide the machine to the one or more candidate areas; see also: [0039, 0042]).
However, Van De Woestyne does not explicitly teach specify a first area having a gradient less than a first gradient threshold value from the target area based on the terrain data; and determine a forest road area forming a forest road in the first area, and transmit, to the reforestation machine, the reforestation instruction signal for instructing the planting of the plant body in an area other than the forest road area in the first area.
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Kondekar teaches and determine a forest road area forming a forest road in the first area ([0003] teaches the silviculture process involves planting fragile saplings into the ground, wherein an automated process may efficiently and carefully plant a multitude of saplings into the ground to support reforestation efforts, wherein [0009] teaches the work machine can travel through a pre-planned navigable path comprising a series of sapling points or a path defined by another work machine during a field preparation operation, wherein [0069] teaches the sapling planting apparatus comprises a tube configured for delivering the sapling towards the ground, with the tube being telescopically moveable, the sapling planting apparatus maintains ground clearance when not planting, penetrates the soil with impactful force with the momentum required from the movement of the tube, and assists in compaction of the soil while providing a travel path for the sapling without requiring any additional subcomponents or subsystems for execution, wherein the telescopic feature of the tube further adds to planting apparatus compactness, thereby minimizing space required in the planter vehicle; see also: [0091]), and
transmit, to the reforestation machine, the reforestation instruction signal for instructing the planting of the plant body in an area other than the forest road area in the first area ([0003] teaches the silviculture process involves planting fragile saplings into the ground, wherein an automated process may efficiently and carefully plant a multitude of saplings into the ground to support reforestation efforts, wherein [0009] teaches the work machine can travel through a pre-planned navigable path comprising a series of sapling points or a path defined by another work machine during a field preparation operation, wherein [0069] teaches the sapling planting apparatus comprises a tube configured for delivering the sapling towards the ground, with the tube being telescopically moveable, the sapling planting apparatus maintains ground clearance when not planting, penetrates the soil with impactful force with the momentum required from the movement of the tube, and assists in compaction of the soil while providing a travel path for the sapling without requiring any additional subcomponents or subsystems for execution, wherein the telescopic feature of the tube further adds to planting apparatus compactness, thereby minimizing space required in the planter vehicle, wherein [0056] teaches the planting vehicle may move across a field and retrieve one or more saplings, such as a tree, and may then plant the sapling into the ground with a minimal footprint while traversing the ground, thus allowing for ease of transportation along roadways, and wherein [0061] teaches having known spacing distance in between saplings; see also: [0074, 0091]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Van De Woestyne to incorporate the teachings of Kondekar to include and determine a forest road area forming a forest road in the first area, and transmit, to the reforestation machine, the reforestation instruction signal for instructing the planting of the plant body in an area other than the forest road area in the first area. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide an automated process to efficiently and carefully plant a multitude of saplings into the ground to support reforestation efforts (Kondekar, [0003]). By incorporating the teachings of Kondekar, one would have been able to assist in compaction of soil while providing a travel path for the sapling by incorporating a telescopic feature that minimizes the space required in the planter vehicle (Kondekar, [0069]).
However, the combination of Van De Woestyne and Kondekar does not explicitly teach specify a first area having a gradient less than a first gradient threshold value from the target area based on the terrain data.
From the same or similar field of endeavor, Flood teaches specify a first area having a gradient less than a first gradient threshold value from the target area based on the terrain data ([0076] teaches slope identification logic is configured to analyze information to perform a slope identification assessment for the worksite, wherein the slope threshold logic generates a threshold value of ground slop, wherein the threshold value of ground slope can include a ratio of vertical rise to run, an angle of ground surface, or any other value that can be compared to a sensed or obtained measure of slope, which is gradient or pitch, of the worksite area, wherein the logic can identify particular sub-areas within the worksite area having a slope that exceeds the threshold value, wherein [0069] teaches generating instructions that allow the machine to perform an operation along a less steep slope, as well as in [0117] teach the machine and slop consideration logic can suggest a machine travel route based on the generated slope mapping and the identified threshold value of the ground slope of the forestry worksite, wherein [0120] teaches the slope identification logic can, prior to an operation being performed, utilize a UAV system to measure slope of worksite, and thus identify areas having a slope greater than a threshold slope to update a travel route for avoiding large slopes, which can be used to improve machine efficiency due to less slippage, as well as in [0128] teaches identifying problem areas of a work site having a steep slope above a threshold, and updating travel routes of the machine based on verified slope information; see also: [0027, 0077, 0105-0106, 0122]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Van De Woestyne and Kondekar to incorporate the teachings of Flood to include specify a first area having a gradient less than a first gradient threshold value from the target area based on the terrain data. One would have been motivated to do so in order to improve machine efficiency because machines experience less slippage and produce less damage to the worksite area, thereby also improving productivity of operations (Flood, [0120]). By incorporating the teachings of Flood, one would have been able to improve productivity of a worksite by identifying problem-areas of a worksite having a steep slope above a threshold and updating travel routes of a work machine based on slope information (Flood, [0128]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 7 are allowable over the available field of prior art. These dependent claims, as drafted, are rendered neither obvious nor anticipated by the available field of prior art.
With respect to claim 4, the prior art of the record does not teach: specify a third area having a gradient equal to or greater than the first gradient threshold value and less than a second gradient threshold value; generate a design plane of the third area where the gradient is less than the first gradient threshold value; and transmit, to an earthwork machine, an earthwork instruction signal for instructing construction of the third area in accordance with the design plane, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit a reforestation instruction signal for instructing planting of a plant body in the third area after the construction in accordance with the design plane by the earthwork machine.
The closest prior art of the record discloses:
Van De Woestyne et al. (US 20210204467 A1) discloses generating a mathematical model of slopes and the changes to slopes over a given area. However, Van De Woestyne fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: specify a third area having a gradient equal to or greater than the first gradient threshold value and less than a second gradient threshold value; generate a design plane of the third area where the gradient is less than the first gradient threshold value; and transmit, to an earthwork machine, an earthwork instruction signal for instructing construction of the third area in accordance with the design plane, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit a reforestation instruction signal for instructing planting of a plant body in the third area after the construction in accordance with the design plane by the earthwork machine.
Flood et al. (US 20190100309 A1) discloses specifying an area having a gradient threshold value greater than a gradient threshold value and specifying a second area having a gradient less than a gradient threshold value. However, Flood fails to explicitly disclose specify a third area having a gradient equal to or greater than the first gradient threshold value and less than a second gradient threshold value; generate a design plane of the third area where the gradient is less than the first gradient threshold value; and transmit, to an earthwork machine, an earthwork instruction signal for instructing construction of the third area in accordance with the design plane, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit a reforestation instruction signal for instructing planting of a plant body in the third area after the construction in accordance with the design plane by the earthwork machine.
Kondekar et al. (US 20210015029 A1) discloses an earthworking machine capable of assisting in the compaction of soil to aid in reforestation efforts. However, Kondekar fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: specify a third area having a gradient equal to or greater than the first gradient threshold value and less than a second gradient threshold value; generate a design plane of the third area where the gradient is less than the first gradient threshold value; and transmit, to an earthwork machine, an earthwork instruction signal for instructing construction of the third area in accordance with the design plane, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit a reforestation instruction signal for instructing planting of a plant body in the third area after the construction in accordance with the design plane by the earthwork machine.
Temple et al. (US 11419261 B2) discloses identifying an area having a gradient equal to or greater than the first gradient threshold value. However, Temple fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: specify a third area having a gradient less than a second gradient threshold value; generate a design plane of the third area where the gradient is less than the first gradient threshold value; and transmit, to an earthwork machine, an earthwork instruction signal for instructing construction of the third area in accordance with the design plane, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: transmit a reforestation instruction signal for instructing planting of a plant body in the third area after the construction in accordance with the design plane by the earthwork machine.
With respect to claims 4-5, these claims may be allowable if amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101, as set forth above.
With respect to claim 7, this claim objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Trim et al. (US 20230281924 A1) discloses generating a digital elevation model including values associated with an area of interest including the type of terrain, the elevation, and the slope
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 Sara G Brown whose telephone number is (469)295-9145. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am- 5:00 pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270-5389. 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.
/SARA GRACE BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625