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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the application filed on November 12, 2024. Claims 1-8 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP24162838.7, filed on March 12, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 12, 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation discloses sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation discloses function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a. “tree detection device” in claims 1-2 and 7-8. A review of the specification shows that it can be a camera, a stereo camera or a lidar device in [0042].
b. “vehicle positioning device” in claims 1 and 3. A review of the specification shows that it can be a can be a GNSS device in [0018].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Examiner has identified [method] Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis. Claim 1 recites the limitations of (additional elements emphasized in bold and are considered to be parsed from the remaining abstract idea):
A method for measuring and analyzing a forest area for a forestry vehicle, the method
comprising:
providing a tree detection device that is coupled to the forestry vehicle and configured to
detect trees in the forest area;
providing a vehicle positioning device that is coupled to the forestry vehicle and configured
to detect a position and an orientation of the forestry vehicle; dividing the forest area into a square area or a grid;
identifying trees that are standing and assigning the trees to the grid;
detecting an average tree amount or a tree density; and
displaying the average tree amount or tree density on a display, wherein the display is
coupled to an operation cabin of the forestry vehicle.
which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) as a Mental process (concept performed in the human mind) but for the recitation of generic computer elements. For example, a person could mentally detect trees in the area using their senses, determine their location on a map, and calculate the average number of trees in a specific area.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong II, this judicial exception is not practically integrated. The claim recites the additional elements of “sensors” multiple times. These elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2B, the aforementioned additional elements are all generic computer elements have been held to be not significantly more than the abstract idea by Alice. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements of using the processors to receive information, make decisions, and supply instructions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the limitation step of “displaying the average tree amount or density”, is not more than the judicial exception, because as detailed in Electric Power Group, additional elements that are used to simply output results do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 2-8 further define characteristics of the system. However, these characteristics do not add limitations that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are therefore also rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tham et al., US 20200066034 A1 (Hereinafter “Tham”).
Regarding Claim 1, Tham discloses a method for measuring and analyzing a forest area for a forestry vehicle, the method comprising: providing a tree detection device that is coupled to the forestry vehicle and configured to detect trees in the forest area; See Fig.2 and [0057], “invention for providing forestry related parameters will be given with reference to FIG. 2 which shows a flowchart for a general method … The UE receives 210 a video sequence (or an image stream), possibly along with sensor data, determines 220 the camera's position and angle, i.e. the pose of the camera, and performs image matching 230 between the respective images in the video sequence using the camera's position, and thereby generates 240 a three dimensional model of the filmed area and any objects therein. The three dimensional model may then be used to determine 250 various forestry related parameters.” Also [0064], “the camera may be brought through a forest … positioned on a vehicle, such as a forestry vehicle.”
providing a vehicle positioning device that is coupled to the forestry vehicle and configured to detect a position and an orientation of the forestry vehicle; See [0054], “The UE 100 may also comprise positional sensors, such as a global navigational system sensor configured to provide the controller with position data, either to be processed by the controller or (at least partially) pre-processed. This enables the controller to determine or follow the actual position of the camera. This position is determined in an external coordinate system (external to the SLAM data cloud), such as a Global Navigation System (GPS or GNSS).”
dividing the forest area into a square area or a grid; identifying trees that are standing and assigning the trees to the grid; detecting an average tree amount or a tree density; See [0088], “To identify 575 the trees, clusters of points are detected 570 in the remaining points. In one embodiment this is done by for all points finding all other points that are within a distance threshold to the current point. Each such cluster is assumed to be a tree. Seen from the base plane, there will be a higher density of points at the locations/positions where there is a tree, as the points can be on top of one another along the stem of the tree. These points may be seen as a cluster of points which can be identified through a density mapping, similar to the height map, but instead of determining a median point it is determined how many points that are part of each grid cell. Those grids that have significantly more points than the surroundings are initially regarded to be trees. A filtering may then be used to finally determine whether it is a tree or not. A cluster is thus initially regarded to be a tree. FIG. 6D shows examples of such point clusters 630.” Also [0111], “The sample plot may be used to determine a basal area and thereby a density of trees. As the trees have been identified, and their approximate width has also been determined, through their detected stems, the tree density of the area may also be determined through a simple divisional operation. The tree density of an area may be defined as the volume of tree (or timber) per area, such as cubic meters of tree per acre (m3/ha).”
displaying the average tree amount or tree density on a display, wherein the display is coupled to an operation cabin of the forestry vehicle. See [0072], “In order to provide a visual feedback of the tree density and such, but also to provide a correction mode, the detected trees may be presented 360 on the display 110 of the UE100 by simply overlaying graphical representations, such as cylinders, of the detected trees on the video being recorded or viewed.“ + [0076]” Statistics may then be generated 380 over several recordings by comparing them based on their corresponding positions, or find statistics, such as tree density distributions, diameter distributions, terrain flatness index, and similar.”
Regarding Claim 3, Tham as cited in claim 1 for the vehicle positioning device recites a GNSS sensor as the positioning device.
Regarding Claim 4, Tham discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein the grid contains a count of detections of trees or of empty squares within the grid. See [0088], “To identify 575 the trees, clusters of points are detected 570 in the remaining points. In one embodiment this is done by for all points finding all other points that are within a distance threshold to the current point. Each such cluster is assumed to be a tree. Seen from the base plane, there will be a higher density of points at the locations/positions where there is a tree, as the points can be on top of one another along the stem of the tree. These points may be seen as a cluster of points which can be identified through a density mapping, similar to the height map, but instead of determining a median point it is determined how many points that are part of each grid cell. Those grids that have significantly more points than the surroundings are initially regarded to be trees. A filtering may then be used to finally determine whether it is a tree or not. A cluster is thus initially regarded to be a tree. FIG. 6D shows examples of such point clusters 630.”
Regarding Claim 8, Tham discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein the tree detection device detects trees when the position of the forestry vehicle changes and/or when the orientation of the forestry vehicle changes. See [0167], “During the analysis, a relative position of the camera and how it is changed in time has been determined. Using the determined position of the camera (UE 100) at one time and relating this to the relative position of the camera at the same time, the exact movement and position of the camera (UE 100) may be determined 1320. As a scale and detected trees' relative location(s) have been determined previously, the distance and direction from the camera to a tree may be determined 1330, based upon which the exact location of the tree is determined 1340. It could be noted that in one embodiment, the whole movement of the camera along with several GNSS determined positions is used to provide an accurate determination of the absolute position of the camera based on a calculated average of positions.” + [0064] which teaches that the camera is coupled to the forest vehicle, thus as the vehicle moves position or changes orientation so would the camera.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tham, in view of Pierzchala et al, Mapping forests using an unmanned ground vehicle with 3D LiDAR and graph-SLAM (NPL) (“Hereinafter “Pierzchata”).
Regarding Claim 2, Tham discloses a method for measuring and analyzing a forest area for a forestry vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose detection device as comprising a stereo camera or a lidar device. However, Neumann teaches a similar method including the following: wherein the tree detection device comprises a stereo camera or a lidar device. See [abstract], “Enabling automated 3D mapping in forests is an important component of the future development of forest technology, and has been garnering interest in the scientific community, as can be seen from the many recent publications. Accordingly, the authors of the present paper propose the use of a Simultaneous Localisation and Mapping algorithm, called graph-SLAM, to generate local maps of forests. In their study, the 3D data required for the mapping process were collected using a custom-made, mobile platform equipped with a number of sensors, including Velodyne VLP-16 LiDAR, a stereo camera, an IMU, and a GPS.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Tham’s device with the felling tree update selection limitations disclosed in Pierzchata with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide cost-effective and acceptable quality methods for forest mapping, see Pierzchata [abstract].
Claims 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tham in view of case precedent from In Re Rose and/or In Gardner V Tec Syst (MPEP 2144.04)
Regarding Claim 5, Tham discloses a method for measuring and analyzing a forest area for a forestry vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose grid dimensions.: wherein the grid is displayedSee Fig.6C, [0082] - [0088] where grid mapping display is created from video sequence.
However Tham does not remark on the specific sizing of this grid (I.e. that the grid is 10m long and wide); as such the difference between the teachings of the prior art and claimed invention is of the specific sizing of the grid squares.
The specific sizing of the grids is a design choice in view of MPEP 2144.04 In re Rose and In Gardner v Tec Syst , which are case law which holds that if the difference between prior art and a claimed invention is merely one of dimensions/size and the changing in size does not affect the underlying operation of the device (in this case the changing of the grid dimensions doesn't affect the underlying principles of operation) then it is not a patentable difference/is not distinct.
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to implement the Grid of Tham with each grid at a size of 10 meters by 10 meters. Such a modification is merely a matter of design choice for selecting what size the grids should be displayed at.
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tham, in view of Neumann et al., US 20170086394 A1 (“Hereinafter “Neumann”).
Regarding Claim 6, Tham discloses a method for measuring and analyzing a forest area for a forestry vehicle, but does not explicitly disclose grid updates. However, Neumann teaches the same method including the following: wherein the grid is updated when a tree is felled by the forestry vehicle. See [0040], “The process and system disclosed herein has certain advantages. For example, by collecting location and volume data on felled trees and the associated felled tree piles, the system can calculate a forest status (e.g., a percentage of harvested trees). This data can further be used in association with mapping information (e.g., LIDAR, satellite images, GPS, etc.) to develop a map illustrating a shape and location of felled trees and felled tree piles. One or more interested parties (e.g., landowners, lumber mills, tree harvesting companies, contractors, etc.) can understand a tree quantity and/or a tree volume at a particular site that has been harvested and/or that has yet to be harvested. These interested parties can also monitor tree felling progress and/or felling efficiency.”
As both are in the same field of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Tham’s device with the felling tree update selection limitations disclosed in Neumann with reasonable expectation of success. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve logging efficiency by allowing for active monitoring of felling progress/efficiency, see Neumann [0004] + [0040] as cited above.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tham .
Regarding Claim 7, Tham discloses the following limitation dependent on Claim 1:
wherein the tree detection device has a range of more than 10 meters “([0150] “…e height may thus vary from one part of the area to another, as the trees in the area vary. The height may be set as a number or by selecting or inputting a tree type corresponding to a typical height. Examples of heights are 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8 meters just to give some examples. It would be apparent to a skilled person that this height may indeed vary greatly...” Here Tham gives example ranges (and implicitly for these detection ranges/filters this implies a detection range at least equal to the filter height/range; 8 meters is the largest given example, however Tham then goes on to say that the height may vary greatly; thus implicitly given that the range of examples varies greater than 2meters between the lowest (4 meters) and height (8 meters) one would expect “vary greatly” to include variances larger than just 2 meters; thus this disclosure is considered to provide an overlapping range of at least 2-10meters and thus anticipates the claim language)”and a field of view of at least 90 degrees. See Fig.4 the field of view of the camera can be seen which appears to be at least 90 degrees and [0066], “the camera is configured to use a wide-angle lens “(i.e. 90-120 degrees)”. If a wider angle than the one originally configured for the camera, the camera may be equipped with a different lens or an add-on lens. A wider angle enables for more trees or objects to be recorded in each camera angle and frame. If a lens, such as a fish-eye lens is used “(i.e. 120+ degrees)”, the manners herein may be configured to take this into account by compensating for angular distortion at the edges of a frame.”
In the alternative that the disclosed range is not considered to overlap via the “varys greatly” of [0150] the greater than 10 meters detection range is considered obvious over the same disclosure in that
Tham however does not explicitly recite that the camera has a detection range of more than 10 meters; however in [0150] discloses various heights of trees being filtered, and that a wide range of heights is expected. Thus from the “Wide range” of various heights (and by extension detection ranges which would be needed for those filters to filter out the height) the setting of a detection range as more than 10 meters is considered to be merely a design choice of routine optimization being selected based on the expected height of the trees.
Tham teaches the underlying detection ranges and that the setting of a detection range/filter height is a choice to one of ordinary skill in the art; thus depending on the tree species one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to simply optimize the detection range to arrive at a detection range of greater than 10 meters. Tham discloses that this filter is sent based on the typical height of the trees which are being analyzed; 10 meters is approximately 32 feet, there are many species of trees (e.g. maples, oaks, poplars, pines) used in forestry which are well above this height at maturity and thus the expected filtering height would be greater than 10ms/32feet for said species. Thus while Tham does not explicitly disclose a detection range greater than 10 meters given the disclosed range comes close (8 meters in [0150] and Tham discloses that the example height can “vary greatly” is it obvious and/or implicit to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
US Publication US 20250255230 A1 by Togashi et al.
European Publication EP 4485113 A1 by Assarsson et al.
WIPO Publication WO 2020109666 A1 by Grohn et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN KEITH PALMARCHUK whose telephone number is (571)272-6261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, NAVID MEHDIZADEH can be reached at 571-272-7691. 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.
/B.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/KENNETH M DUNNE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights