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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 4 section titled “detailed description” para. 1 line 1 “To make the purpose, the technical solution…” should read as “The technical solution…”.
Page 4 section titled “detailed description” para. 3 line 2 “LandsatTM/ETM” should read as “Landsat TM/ETM”
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term “ArcGIS” on page 5, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 2-3 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the disturbance intensity…" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous mention of a disturbance intensity of port construction on the region. As such, it is unclear what this is referencing back to within the claim limitations.
"the disturbance intensity" will be read as "a disturbance intensity…"
Claim 2 includes the term “F1”. It is unclear what this is meant to refer to, as all similar reference numbers shown within the table present in claim 2 are directly associated with a landscape type. As such, the claim is rendered indefinite by virtue of including a term which cannot be reasonably determined. This term is further made unclear due to not having a definition or value associated with it (the table shows no value for a disturbance level associated with the term).
The term “(F1)” will be read as “Suaeda heteropteran Kitagawa (F1)” as is shown on the table of page 3 of the instant application. Further the associated blank disturbance level of the table in claim 2 will be read as having the value “1”, which is in line with the table of page 3 of the instant application.
Claim 2 contains the trademark/trade name “ArcGIS”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe grids of a same size as the ArcGIS fishing net method and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1 lines 1-4, this portion of the claim constitute the preamble and are not given patentable weight, due to the language of the preamble not being incorporated into the claim limitations of claim 1 in a manner that limits the claims (and is instead considered as reciting intended use, see MPEP 2111.02).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, for the reasons as follows:
In re to claim 1, the claim is directed to a method, which falls within one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 1 recites: “A method for impact analysis of port construction on a coastal ecotone based on remote sensing data, wherein the method quantifies landscape data and satellite image data, and then converts the data into intuitive images to observe the spatio-temporal change of the coastal ecotone after port construction, comprising: step 1: obtaining remote sensing image data of a research region;
step 2: preprocessing the remote sensing image data to obtain processed images;
step 3: establishing an evaluation system of human disturbance indexes;
step 4: generating a spatio-temporal distribution map of regional disturbance indexes.”
The limitations of claim 1, as drafted, are considered to fall under the category of an abstract concept.
For example, an individual may look at collected data for a region and then organize it to further draw out a map according to a plurality of indexes that comprise said data.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. Additionally, steps 1 and 2 of claim 1 are regarded as insignificant extra-solution activity with respect to MPEP 2106.05 (g), being only related to obtaining information, and performing some form of preprocessing on said information.
Dependent claims
Claims 2-3 (dependent on claim 1) disclose further aspects of the analysis of sensing data. They add significantly more than the abstract idea, and are not reasonably performable in the human mind.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Safarov et al. (non-patent literature titled “Determination of Caspian Sea Coastal Changes Using Remote Sensing and Geographic Information Systems”; hereinafter “Safarov”) in view of Kowe et al. (non-patent literature titled “A quantitative framework for analysing long term spatial clustering and vegetation fragmentation in an urban landscape using multi-temporal landsat data”; hereinafter “Kowe”).
In re to claim 1, Safarov teaches wherein: step 1: obtaining remote sensing image data of a research region (section II subsection C discloses the use of remote sensing data, which is further shown to be used to with respect to particular regions (such as is exemplified in Fig. 3, which is a thematic map of a particular region). This is further corroborated by section II subsection B para. 1, which discusses the use of satellite sensors to further utilize images for a study area (understood as a research area));
step 2: preprocessing the remote sensing image data to obtain processed images (section II subsection B discloses preprocessing remote sensing data to produce image data for a study area);
Safarov does not explicitly teach wherein: establishing an evaluation system of human disturbance indexes;
As well as generating a spatio-temporal distribution map of regional disturbance indexes.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Kowe teaches wherein: establishing an evaluation system (section 3.3 discloses evaluation of an area according to indexes, thus establishing an evaluation system) of human disturbance indexes (section 3.3 discloses evaluation of an area weighted mean shape index and an area weighted mean patch fractal dimension index, understood to be human disturbance indexes (as they are used to evaluate landscapes with respect to urbanization, per the abstract that establishes the goal of determining vegetation fragmentation as a result of urban landscapes));
As well as generating a spatio-temporal distribution map of regional disturbance indexes (section 3.7 and Fig. 5, shows the generation of spatio-temporal distribution maps of vegetation according to a collection of values indicative of regional vegetation at different time periods (understood as region disturbance indexes)).
Kowe, like Safarov processes satellite data in order to generate informative data related to a region.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Safarov, to produce maps according indexes, as taught by Kowe. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been to expand the evaluated effects of human development to the impacts it has on vegetation (as is the goal of Kowe’s abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112(b) rejections above, as well as being rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance for claim 2. The claimed features of claim 2 are not anticipated nor obvious in view of prior art of record.
Safarov teaches the evaluation of satellite sensor data for the generation of region images that correspond to environmental data taken over time. Further, this data is indicative of changes in relation to human activity (as suggested in the conclusion of Safarov). Additionally, this takes into consideration indexes of data to generate maps that correspond to the region. However, it does not explicitly indicate a plurality of types of landscapes that include all the types described in claim 2. Nor does it further include the same numerical valuations of some form of “disturbance level” in associations with said land types.
Kowe discloses the performance of index information evaluations for a region that additionally uses said information to produce maps. However, it does not explicitly indicate the performance of atmospheric correction or image mosaic and cropping required by the claims. Nor does it perform a classification of land types that includes the various types described in the table of claim 2. It also does not further include the same numerical valuations of some form of “disturbance level” in associations with said land types.
Additionally, the other known prior art or record do not address all the limitations of the independent claims without the use of impermissible hindsight bias. As such, claim 2’s limitations are neither anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M COOMBER whose telephone number is (571)270-0950. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached at (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 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.
/KEVIN M COOMBER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2663
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
Prosecution Insights