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 .
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.
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 limitations are: “a camera control unit configured to” and “a computing unit configured to” in claim 1.
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, it/they is/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 this/these limitation(s) 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.
Additionally, the Examiner notes that in claim 7, the phrase “at least one of X, Y, and Z” is interpreted as “at least one of X, and at least one of Y, and at least one of Z”, as set by Superguide Corp. v. Direct TV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 69 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 has a repeated “the” that should be omitted “wherein the information includes at least one of the the shape of a tree or stem”.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the computing unit is further configured to process a pixel based or object-based method”, but it is unclear what is explicitly being processed.
Claim 7 has a semicolon immediately followed by a comma which should be corrected (“commanding at least one stereo camera with a control unit;,”).
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is-
directed to an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significant more than
the abstract idea. The rationale for this rejection, under MPEP § 2106, for this finding is
explained below.
Step 1: Under step 1, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claim is directed to a
process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. For the claims in question,
claim 1 is directed towards a machine and claim 7 is directed towards a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Under step 2A, prong 1, the claims are evaluated to determine if the
claim recites a judicial exception, which includes the laws of nature, physical phenomena, or an
abstract idea. For independent claims 1 and 7, the limitations regarding the analysis of an image to determine various information about a tree in the image (i.e., the shape of a tree, the type of tree, the bark/surface of a tree, irregularities of a tree, diameter of a tree, and/or density or basal area of a working area) are directed towards a mental process. For a given image of a tree(s), an individual can reasonably deduce the information claimed in the limitations of claim 1 (i.e., an individual can determine a shape of a tree, the type of tree, etc.).
Step 2A, Prong 2: Under step 2A, prong 2, the claims are evaluated to determine
whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application
of the exception (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). The examiner notes that MPEP 2106.05(a) -(c) and (e)
generally concern limitations that are indicative of integration, whereas 2106.05(f)-(h) generally
concern limitations that are not indicative of integration.
In regards to claims 1 and 7, the limitations as described above are directed towards a mental process. The additional limitations regarding using a camera and obtaining data from the camera are considered to be extra-solution activity and do not constitute integration into a practical application or significantly more (see MPEP 2106.0 (g)).
In regards to dependent claims 2-6 and 8-11, the additional limitations are broadly recited and further disclose steps used to perform the judicial exception with any clear indication or detail which would indicate integration into a practical application as noted in MPEP 2106.05(a) or MPEP 2106.05(e). Therefore, the additional limitations of claims 2-6 and 8-11 do not constitute integration into a practical application.
The examiner emphasizes MPEP 2106.05(a), which states that a limitation is indicative of integration into a practical application if the limitation identifies a manner in which an improvement is explicitly and specifically achieved and recited in the claims. The current claim language all are recited at a high level of generality which do not serve to integrate the limitations in view of MPEP 2106.05(f), and furthermore nothing precludes the current limitations from being interpreted under the mental processes grouping.
Step 2B: Under step 2B, the claims are evaluated as a whole to determine if it amounts to
significantly more than the recited exception (i.e., whether any additional element, or
combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim). The considerations
of step 2A, prong 2 and step 2B overlap, but differ in that 2B also requires considering the claim
as a whole/combination of limitations, and with reference to MPEP 2106.05(d) whether the
claims feature any “specific limitation(s) other than what is well - understood, routine,
conventional activity in the field” (WURC). The examiner asserts that, even when considered in combination, the additional elements of claims 1-11 represent mere instruction to apply a mental process (identifying information about a tree(s) from an image) at a high level of generality that is generally linked to the field of applying image processing techniques to images of trees/forestry, and therefore does not provide a specifically recited inventive
concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, claim 1 recites a list of limitations/options for the different types of information which can be determined from a stereo camera. Claim 1 recites “wherein the information includes at least one of…” but there is no associated “and” or “or” (i.e., “the information includes at least one of the…diameter of a tree or stem, and/or density or basal area of a working area of the forestry vehicle”) at the end of the list of options to determine how the list of limitations should be interpreted. Under the “and” scenario (as presented in claim 7), the Superguide interpretation is used as noted in the “Claim Interpretation” section. Under the “or” scenario, the claim limitations only require one option from the list of limitations presented. Further clarification is required here to properly interpret the claim.
Regarding Claim 7, claim 7 recites a processor having program instructions for “pixel comparison”, where it is unclear what “pixel comparison” is referring to. The specification provides no detail regarding what the claimed “pixel comparison” is performing, and additionally it is unclear how “pixel comparison” is used to obtain the information claimed in claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Johansson and Kumara (US 2021/0176926; hereinafter “Johansson”).
Regarding Claim 1, Johansson discloses a system, to be integrated in a forestry vehicle, for measuring and analyzing a forest area, the system comprising:
at least one stereo camera (see [0024]);
a camera control unit configured to give commands to the camera (see [0015-0016] and [0022]);
a computing unit configured to receive a data from the stereo camera and a processor on the computing unit, the processor having program instructions to compute the received data and to calculate and determine an information based on the data (see [0022]), wherein the information includes at least one of the
the shape of a tree or stem ([0024-0025], Johansson discloses determining the straightness of a tree trunk.), the type of tree ([0024], Johansson discloses determining the species of trees.), the bark or surface of a tree or stem, irregularities of a tree or stem ([0023], Johansson discloses identifying damage to a tree.), diameter of a tree or stem, density or basal area of a working area of the forestry vehicle; and
a display unit configured to display the information to an operator of the forestry vehicle (see [0015], [0033-0036], Fig. 6, Johansson discloses a display which presents information to a user.).
Regarding Claim 3, Johansson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein computing unit is further configured to exchange data with a database ([0023], Johansson discloses a database to store information.).
Regarding Claim 5, Johannson discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the computing unit is further configured to process a pixel based or object-based method ([0016], [0019], [0024-0028], Johansson discloses analyzing an image (i.e., a pixel based method).).
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.
Claims 2 is rejected as being unpatentable over Johansson in view of Flood et al. (US 2019/0102623; hereinafter “Flood”).
Regarding Claim 2, Johansson discloses the system of claim 1.
Johansson does not explicitly disclose wherein the diameter of the tree measured is between one and three meters above the ground.
PNG
media_image1.png
304
759
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Flood discloses wherein the diameter of the tree measured is between one and three meters above the ground ([0070], Flood discloses a tree metric image processing logic which analyzes an image to determine diameter of a tree at breast height. The Examiner notes that “breast height” is commonly known as height approximately 1.3 meters above ground.1).
Johansson and Flood are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of analyzing images from a forestry worksite. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johansson by incorporating Flood’s disclosure of analyzing an image to determine tree diameter at breast height. The motivation for this combination being the ability to obtain additional information regarding the trees in the image which may be useful to an operator.
Claim 4 is rejected as being unpatentable over Johansson in view of Zviran et al. (US 2025/0130331; hereinafter “Zviran”).
Regarding Claim 4, Johansson discloses the system of claim 1.
Johansson does not explicitly disclose wherein the computing unit is further configured to detect trees in the working area to determine a tree density or basal area, and to compare the detected density or basal area with a planned density or planned basal area, and to display a deviation to the operator.
Zviran discloses wherein the computing unit is further configured to detect trees in the working area to determine a tree density or basal area, and to compare the detected density or basal area with a planned density or planned basal area, and to display a deviation to the operator ([0036], [0109], Fig. 8 Zviran discloses determining tree density and tree basal area, and comparing the values to a management plan. The differences are then visualized and presented to a user.).
Johansson and Zviran are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of analyzing images from a forestry worksite. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johansson by incorporating Zviran’s disclosure determining a tree density and comparing the values to a management plan. The motivation for this combination being the ability to indicate to a user when there is a difference between the trees which are being analyzed and the expected density.
Claim 6 is rejected as being unpatentable over Johansson in view of Gordon et al. (US 2022/0198641; hereinafter “Gordon”) in view of Zviran.
Regarding Claim 6, Johansson discloses the system of claim 1.
Johansson does not explicitly disclose wherein the computing unit is further configured according to identify individual trees, which are either damaged or not straight or to be felled to reach the planned density or basal area.
Gordon discloses wherein the computing unit is further configured according to identify individual trees, which are either damaged or not straight or to be felled ([0039], Gordon discloses identifying individual trees in an image which are at risk of falling.)
Johansson and Gordon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of analyzing images from a forestry worksite. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johansson by incorporating Gordon’s disclosure regarding the identification of individual at-risk trees. The motivation for this combination being the ability to detect trees which need to be removed.
Johansson in view of Gordon does not explicitly teach to identify individual trees, which are either damaged or not straight or to be felled (italicized for context) to reach the planned density or basal area.
Zviran discloses to identify individual trees, which are either damaged or not straight or to be felled (italicized for context) to reach the planned density or basal area ([0036], [0109], Fig. 8 Zviran discloses determining tree density and tree basal area, and comparing the values to a management plan.).
Johansson, Gordon, and Zviran are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of analyzing images from a forestry worksite. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johansson in view of Gordon by incorporating Zviran’s disclosure of having a management plan based on tree density and tree basal area. The motivation for this combination being the ability to utilize the information regarding which trees need to be removed in the context of a target or goal (i.e., a management plan).
Claims 7-9 are rejected as being unpatentable over Johansson in view of Flood in view of Gurau and Busby (US 2022/0022388; hereinafter “Gurau”).
Regarding Claim 7, Johansson discloses a method of measuring and analyzing a forest area from a forestry vehicle, the method comprising commanding at least one stereo camera with a control unit;, receiving a data from the stereo camera by a computing unit; calculating and determining by a processor on the computing unit, the processor having program instructions for pixel comparison when calculating and determining the data; displaying the information on a display associated of the forestry vehicle (see Fig. 1, [0015], [0020-0024]);
wherein the information includes at least one of
the shape of a tree or stem ([0024-0025], Johansson discloses determining the straightness of a tree trunk.),
the type of tree ([0024], Johansson discloses determining the species of trees.),
irregularities of a tree or stem ([0023], Johansson discloses identifying damage to a tree.),
Johansson does not explicitly disclose wherein the information includes at least one of the bark or surface of a tree or stem, diameter of a tree or stem, and density or basal area of a working area of the forestry vehicle.
Flood discloses wherein the information includes at least one of ([0070], Flood discloses a tree metric image processing logic which analyzes an image to determine diameter of a tree at breast height), and density or basal area of a working area of the forestry vehicle ([0070], Flood discloses a tree metric image processing unit, which can determine tree density based on image processing.).
Johansson and Flood are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of analyzing images from a forestry worksite. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johansson by incorporating Flood’s disclosure of analyzing an image to determine tree density. The motivation for this combination being the ability to obtain additional information regarding the trees in the image which may be useful to an operator.
Johansson in view of Flood does not explicitly teach wherein the information includes at least one of the bark or surface of a tree stem.
Gurau discloses wherein the information includes at least one of the bark or surface of a tree stem ([0046], Gurau discloses utilizing a vision system to determine a type of bark on a tree.).
Johansson, Flood, and Gurau are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of analyzing images from a forestry worksite. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johansson by incorporating Gurau’s disclosure of analyzing images to determine a type of tree bark. The motivation for this combination being the ability to obtain additional information regarding the trees in the image which may be useful to an operator.
Regarding Claim 8, Johannson in view of Flood in view of Gurau teaches the method of claim 7 wherein the diameter of the tree measured is between one and three meters above the ground ([0070], Flood discloses a tree metric image processing logic which analyzes an image to determine diameter of a tree at breast height.)
Regarding Claim 9, Johannson in view of Flood in view of Gurau teaches the method of claim 7 further comprising exchanging data with a database ([0023], Johansson discloses a database to store information.).
Claims 10 is rejected as being unpatentable over Johansson in view of Flood in view of Gurau in view of Zviran.
Regarding Claim 10, Johannson in view of Flood in view of Gurau teaches the method of claim 7.
Johannson in view of Flood in view of Gurau does not explicitly teach detecting trees in the working area; determining a tree density or basal area; comparing the detected density or basal area with a planned density or planned basal area; and displaying a deviation to the operator.
Zviran discloses detecting trees in the working area; determining a tree density or basal area; comparing the detected density or basal area with a planned density or planned basal area; and displaying a deviation to the operator ([0036], [0109], Fig. 8 Zviran discloses determining tree density and tree basal area, and comparing the values to a management plan. The differences are then visualized and presented to a user.).
Johansson, Flood, Gurau, and Zviran are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of analyzing images from a forestry worksite. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johansson in view of Flood in view of Gurau by incorporating Zviran’s disclosure determining a tree density and comparing the values to a management plan. The motivation for this combination being the ability to indicate to a user when there is a difference between the trees which are being analyzed and the expected density.
Claims 11 is rejected as being unpatentable over Johansson in view of Flood in view of Gurau in view of Gordin in view of Zviran.
Regarding Claim 11, Johannson in view of Flood in view of Gurau teaches the method of claim 7.
The current combination of Johannson in view of Flood in view of Gurau does not explicitly teach further comprising identifying individual trees, which are either damaged or not straight or to be felled to reach the planned density or the planned basal area.
Gordon discloses wherein the computing unit is further configured according to identify individual trees, which are either damaged or not straight or to be felled ([0039], Gordon discloses identifying individual trees in an image which are at risk of falling.)
Johansson, Flood, Gurau, and Gordon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of analyzing images from a forestry worksite. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johansson in view of Flood in view of Gurau by incorporating Gordon’s disclosure regarding the identification of individual at-risk trees. The motivation for this combination being the ability to detect trees which need to be removed.
Johansson in view of Flood in view of Gurau in view of Gordon does not explicitly teach to identify individual trees, which are either damaged or not straight or to be felled (italicized for context) to reach the planned density or basal area.
Zviran discloses to identify individual trees, which are either damaged or not straight or to be felled (italicized for context) to reach the planned density or basal area ([0036], [0109], Fig. 8 Zviran discloses determining tree density and tree basal area, and comparing the values to a management plan.).
Johansson, Flood, Gurau, Gordon, and Zviran are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of analyzing images from a forestry worksite. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Johansson in view of Flood in view of Gurau in view of Gordon by incorporating Zviran’s disclosure of having a management plan based on tree density and tree basal area. The motivation for this combination being the ability to utilize the information regarding which trees need to be removed in the context of a target or goal (i.e., a management plan).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PROMOTTO TAJRIAN ISLAM whose telephone number is (703)756-5584. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Chan Park can be reached at (571) 272-7409. 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.
/PROMOTTO TAJRIAN ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diameter_at_breast_height#cite_note-1
Prosecution Insights