[1] Remarks
I. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
II. Claim 1 is pending and have been examined, where claims 1 is/are rejected. Explanations will be provided below.
III. Inventor and/or assignee search were performed and determined no double patenting rejection(s) is/are necessary. Claim 1 of Issued patent 12205367 does not read on the current claim 1 because patent claim 1 discloses addition limitations: “receive a selection of a region of the one or more classified habitats, wherein the region is designated for land conversion; determine at least one change to the at least one respective metric for the region based upon the land conversion; and provide information describing the at least one change to the at least one respective metric in the interface.”
IV. Patent eligibility (updated in 2019) shown by the following: Claim 1 pass patent eligibility test because there is/are no limitation or a combination of limitations amounting to an abstract idea. Also, the following limitation or the combinations of the limitations:
“classify one or more habitats within the geographic location based on at least one machine learning model that processes the at least one data point of the geographic location; determine at least one respective metric for the one or more classified habitats based at least in part on the at least one data point of the geographic location;” effects a transformation or a reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing / adds a specific limitation(s) other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application and providing improvements to the technical field of Machine Learning, which recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounting significant more.
V. There are no PCT associated with the current application.
[2] 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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim(s) 1 is/are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph because of the following reason(s): limitations are modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function; they are method claims with no association to generic placeholder(s); they are CRM claims. Upon examination of the specification and claims, the examiner has determined, under the best understanding of the scope of the claim(s), rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/(b) is not necessitated because of the following reasons: sufficient support are provided in the written description / drawings of the invention.
[3] Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty.
[Editor Note: Applicable to any patent application subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (see 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) ). See 35 U.S.C. 102 (pre-AIA ) for the law otherwise applicable.]
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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; or
(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151 , or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b) , in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(b) EXCEPTIONS.—
(1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—
(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
(2) DISCLOSURES APPEARING IN APPLICATIONS AND PATENTS.—A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if—
(A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sargent (US 20200117959).
Regarding claim 1, Sargent discloses a system comprising: at least one processor; and memory, the memory containing instructions to control any number of the at least one processor to:
determine a geographic location to be assessed (see figure 3 on the left and figure 7 on the right, a geographic location is determined to be assessed):
PNG
media_image1.png
249
799
media_image1.png
Greyscale
;
obtain information associated with the geographic location, the information including at least one data point of the geographic location (see figure 7(b) and (c), within the two study sites, the highway, railway in S1 and the highway, railway, and canal in S2 belong to linearly shaped objects (LS-objects) in consideration of the elongated geometric characteristics is read as data point);
classify one or more habitats within the geographic location based on at least one machine learning model that processes the at least one data point of the geographic location (see figure 9, the portion of the images are either classified as Commercial, Industrial, Park and Creational area, Harbor and sea water, highway, railway, parking lot or redeveloped area);
determine at least one respective metric for the one or more classified habitats based at least in part on the at least one data point of the geographic location (see figure 9, one metric to notice is the population densities, high-density and medium-densities); and
PNG
media_image2.png
375
1054
media_image2.png
Greyscale
;
provide an interface that includes at least a map of the geographic location and the at least one respective metric for the one or more classified habitats (see paragraph 20, a precise partition of functional units as image objects together with an accurate and robust representation of spatial context are, therefore, needed to characterize urban land use structures and patterns into high-level feature thematic maps), wherein the one or more classified habitats are visually segmented in the map by habitat type (see figure 7(b), classified habitats are visually segmented, also see figure 1 for i/o interface):
PNG
media_image3.png
203
969
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX LIEW (duty station is located in New York City) whose telephone number is (571)272-8623 (FAX 571-273-8623), cell (917)763-1192 or email alexa.liew@uspto.gov. Please note the examiner cannot reply through email unless an internet communication authorization is provided by the applicant. The examiner can be reached anytime.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vu Le can be reached on 571-272-7332. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEX KOK S LIEW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668 Telephone: 571-272-8623
Date: 7/23/26
Prosecution Insights