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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process), and claims 2-10 are directed to a system (i.e., device). Therefore, claims 1-10 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 1 substantially recites: receiving an identifier, wherein the identifier uniquely identifies a real property; retrieving at least one piece of data, using the identifier, wherein the at least one piece of data includes at least one of: operator name, mine name, primary commodity, secondary commodity, operating status, or number of employees ;calculating a value of the real property using the at least one piece of data, and at least one additional piece of data; and sending the value of the real property to a user.
Independent claim 2: substantially recites calculating the net present value for mineral properties, enter real property identifier, receives the real property identifier.
The limitations stated above are processes/ functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation (e.g., calculating NPV for mineral properties) covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and commercial or legal interactions and following rules or instructions) because the claims recite collecting, analyzing and outputting the result to a user. The claims recite concepts related to mathematical relationships ( i.e. calculating NPV for mineral properties) . Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 2 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent).
Independent claims 1 and 2 recite the additional elements: outputting, user interface, processing device in communication with a communication device and an input/output interface, a memory device, interface module, a net present value verification module, and a storage module; I/O interface, these are recited at a high-level of generality in the specification. (See specification: page 3., As illustrated in FIG. 1, the system 102 includes a processing device 104 coupled to a communication device 106. The processing device 104 is also coupled to a memory device 108, a storage module 144, and an input/output ("I/O") interface 110. In certain embodiments, the communication device 106 enables the system25 102 to communicate with other devices and systems via one or more networks 116. The system 102 can communicate with a user device 150 and/or a data provider 160 via the network 116. The user device 150 and/or the data provider 160 can include one or more electronic devices such as a laptop computer, a desktop computer, a tablet computer, a smartphone, a thin client, and the like. Page. The interface module 140, the net present value module 142, and the storage module 144 can be written in any programming language. In some embodiments, the application can be a specifically designed application that operates with the system 102 to perform the processes and methods described herein. ), such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination ( as shown in Fig.1), it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of: (i) outputting, user interface, processing device in communication with a communication device and an input/output interface, a memory device, interface module, a net present value verification module, and a storage module; I/O interface, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination ( as shown in Fig.1), nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented. Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea (e.g., using computers to communicate data). Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself. Therefore, the dependent claims are not eligible subject matter under § 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisaguirre (US 20220084146 A1) in view of CFI ( See V in PTO-892)
As per claim 1, Eisaguirre teaches:
A method for calculating the present value for mineral properties, the method comprising: receiving an identifier, wherein the identifier uniquely identifies a real property; ( see at least: Fig.2, [0007] The system comprises a processing device comprising a transmitting/receiving element configured to receive identification of the at least one real property and land use restrictions and requirements for the at least one real property and a processor configured to spatially map the at least one real property including surface and sub surface known attributes and determine potential land uses for the at least one real property based on land use restrictions and requirements for the at least one real property, and assign present values to the potential land uses.)
retrieving at least one piece of data, using the identifier, wherein the at least one piece of data includes at least one of: operator name, mine name, primary commodity, secondary commodity, operating status, or number of employees; ( see at least : [0043] The system may seek information from existing data or databases, subsurface/natural resource uses, [0020] receives data from at least one source 102 a-n, wherein data may include information regarding natural resources on the property [commodity], [0037] Database 402 in storage device 403 is a database that locally maintains relevant information in various categories, such as natural resource information and pricing [0039] The system may then assess attributes of the property, size, current market value, rights, subsurface rights, subsurface soil or mineral content and makeup, geographical features, and so forth)
calculating a value of the real property using the at least one piece of data, and at least one additional piece of data; and outputting the value of the real property to a user interface. ( see at least: Fig.2, [0039] The system may then assess attributes of the property, size, current market value, rights, subsurface rights, subsurface soil or mineral content and makeup, geographical features, and so forth) [0041] Based on the entirety of the foregoing, the system may assess and determine all logical and available potential uses and may quantify, in terms of current and/or future revenues, price fluctuations for market values, and so forth, a collection of potential uses for the land. The system may then provide all logical and reasonable potential uses to the user and/or seller.[0043] Based on all available information, restrictions, etc., the system may determine potential available land uses for the parcel and provide such uses and the value of such uses to the user or owner. Different categories of uses may be considered, including but not limited to surface uses (construction, farming, etc.), subsurface/natural resource uses, potential sale uses, and so forth. The result is a list of potential uses and in one embodiment present day values of such uses at market rate)[0023] a land parcel may have minerals located thereon below the surface, and the owner may have subsurface rights to the land parcel. The system determines the cost and benefit of extracting the materials, including sale at current and potential future prices.[0047] determine potential land uses for the land parcel based on available information relevant to the land parcel, and assign present values to the potential land uses. The processing device provides a number of potential land uses and assigned present values for the land parcel determined by the processor to a requesting entity.)
Eisaguirre does not explicitly teach the net present value, however, this is taught in CFI, ( P/NAV is the most important mining valuation metric. “Net asset value” is the net present value (NPV) or discounted cash flow (DCF) value of all the future cash flow of the mining asset less any debt plus any cash. The model can be forecast to the end of the mine life and discounted back today because the technical reports have a very detailed Life of Mine plan (LOM). NAV is a sum-of-the-parts approach to valuation, in that each individual mining asset is independently valued and then added together.).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine the net present value feature for the same reasons its useful in CFI -namely, the best way to value a mining asset or company is to build a discounted cash flow (DCF) model that takes into account a mining plan produced in a technical report (like a Feasibility Study). Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 2, Eisaguirre teaches:
A system for calculating the net present value for mineral properties, the system comprising: a processing device in communication with a communication device and an input/output interface, and a memory device; the memory device comprising an interface module, a present value verification module, and a storage module; ( see at least: Fig. 1, Fig.4, [0020] FIG. 1 is a representation of the overall design. From FIG. 1, central processing device 101, also known as a processing device [processing device], receives data from at least one source 102 a-n, wherein data may include information regarding natural resources on the property, [0037] FIG. 4 shows a representation of central processing device 101, wherein receiving/transmitting element 401 receives information and may be employed to seek additional information such as by exploring the internet for data, changes in data, or other information. Database 402 in storage device 403 is a database that locally maintains relevant information in various categories, Storage device 403 [memory device ] may be any type of storage device, provided in storage device 403 are algorithms used for prediction, determining of land uses, and so forth. Processor 404 obtains relevant algorithms and/or data from storage device 403 and makes the determinations noted herein and may provide results to the user or to the marketplace or to any appropriate computing device via receiving/transmitting element 401 [via interface module])
wherein a real property identifier can be entered into system via interface module, and interface module receives the real property identifier via the I/O interface. ( see at least: [0007] The system comprises a processing device comprising a transmitting/receiving element configured to receive identification of the at least one real property and land use restrictions and requirements for the at least one real property and a processor configured to spatially map the at least one real property including surface and sub surface known attributes and determine potential land uses for the at least one real property based on land use restrictions and requirements for the at least one real property, and assign present values to the potential land uses.)
Eisaguirre does not explicitly teach the net present value, however, this is taught in CFI, ( P/NAV is the most important mining valuation metric. “Net asset value” is the net present value (NPV) or discounted cash flow (DCF) value of all the future cash flow of the mining asset less any debt plus any cash. The model can be forecast to the end of the mine life and discounted back today because the technical reports have a very detailed Life of Mine plan (LOM). NAV is a sum-of-the-parts approach to valuation, in that each individual mining asset is independently valued and then added together.).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine the net present value feature for the same reasons its useful in CFI -namely, the best way to value a mining asset or company is to build a discounted cash flow (DCF) model that takes into account a mining plan produced in a technical report (like a Feasibility Study). Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 3, Eisaguirre in view of CFI teaches claim 2 as above. Eisaguirre further teaches:
the system uses the real property identifier to query the data provider through the communication device in order to retrieve at least one piece of data about the real property. ( see at least: [0043] The system may seek information from existing data or databases, such as information maintained locally or on publicly available data sites, such as on the internet, and may use alternate techniques such as crowdsourcing to obtain relevant potential use information. Based on all available information, restrictions, etc., the system may determine potential available land uses for the parcel and provide such uses and the value of such uses to the user or owner. Different categories of uses may be considered, including but not limited to surface uses (construction, farming, etc.), subsurface/natural resource uses, potential sale uses, and so forth [0039] The system may then assess attributes of the property, size, current market value, rights, subsurface rights, subsurface soil or mineral content and makeup, geographical features, and so forth)
Claim(s) 4-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eisaguirre (US 20220084146 A1) in view of CFI ( See V in PTO-892) in further view of Ansbro (See U in PTO-892)
As per claim 4, Eisaguirre in view of CFI teaches claim 3 as above. Eisaguirre further teaches:
wherein the real property identifier ( see at least:[0007] receive identification of the real property)
Eisaguirre does not explicitly teach a mine ID that queries publicly available Mine Safety and Health Administration data, however, this is taught by Ansbro ( see:pg.1, An MSHA Mine ID is a unique identifying number required for each U.S. underground and surface mine site before any operations may begin. Pg.3, What Is the Mine Data Retrieval System (MDRS)? One of the ways that MSHA uses IDs is to aggregate reported information on mining and provide that data to the public via a range of industry reports. The resulting reports can be accessed through an online portal called the Mine Data Retrieval System (MDRS). Reports can be searched by: Mine ID. The reports output by the system include: Mine information, Overview, Accidents, Inspections, Violations, Health samples, Employment/Production, And more. TIP! – The MDRS is a great resource for gathering information on the mining industry as well as for specific mines and mining contractors.)
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine the Mine ID feature for the same reasons its useful in Ansbro -namely, uses Mine IDs is to aggregate reported information on mining and provide that data to the public via a range of industry reports. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Eisaguirre further teaches the at least one piece of data that can be retrieved can be one or more of the following: operator name, mine name, primary commodity, secondary commodity, operating status, or number of employees. ( see at least: [0039] The system may then assess attributes of the property, size, current market value, rights, subsurface rights, subsurface soil or mineral content and makeup , geographical features, and so forth [0023] a land parcel may have minerals located thereon below the surface, and the owner may have subsurface rights to the land parcel. The system determines the cost and benefit of extracting the materials, including sale at current and potential future prices [0037] Database 402 in storage device 403 is a database that locally maintains relevant information in various categories, such as natural resource information [commodity] and pricing)
As per claim 5, Eisaguirre in view of CFI teaches claim 4 as above. Eisaguirre further teaches:
wherein the retrieved data is fed to the present value module, and wherein the present value of the real property is calculated using the retrieved data and at least one additional piece of data. ( see at least: [0039] The system may then assess attributes of the property, size, current market value, rights, subsurface rights, subsurface soil or mineral content and makeup geographical features, and so forth [0023]The system determines the cost and benefit of extracting the materials, including sale at current and potential future prices).[0047] determine potential land uses for the land parcel based on available information relevant to the land parcel, and assign present values to the potential land uses. The processing device provides a number of potential land uses and assigned present values for the land parcel determined by the processor to a requesting entity.)
Eisaguirre does not explicitly teach the net present value, however, this is taught in CFI, ( P/NAV is the most important mining valuation metric. “Net asset value” is the net present value (NPV) or discounted cash flow (DCF) value of all the future cash flow of the mining asset less any debt plus any cash. The model can be forecast to the end of the mine life and discounted back today because the technical reports have a very detailed Life of Mine plan (LOM). NAV is a sum-of-the-parts approach to valuation, in that each individual mining asset is independently valued and then added together.).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine the net present value feature for the same reasons its useful in CFI -namely, the best way to value a mining asset or company is to build a discounted cash flow (DCF) model that takes into account a mining plan produced in a technical report (like a Feasibility Study). Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 6, Eisaguirre in view of CFI teaches claim 4 as above. Eisaguirre further teaches:
wherein the calculation proceeds in the present value module by determining a number of known values. ( see at least: [0022] Point 204 calls for determining an economic valuation of the data based on information available. Point 204 can be divided into collecting available information about the relevant natural resources, current land values [known values])
Eisaguirre does not explicitly teach the net present value, however, this is taught in CFI, ( P/NAV is the most important mining valuation metric. “Net asset value” is the net present value (NPV) or discounted cash flow (DCF) value of all the future cash flow of the mining asset less any debt plus any cash. The model can be forecast to the end of the mine life and discounted back today because the technical reports have a very detailed Life of Mine plan (LOM). NAV is a sum-of-the-parts approach to valuation, in that each individual mining asset is independently valued and then added together.).
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of present invention to combine the net present value feature for the same reasons its useful in CFI -namely, the best way to value a mining asset or company is to build a discounted cash flow (DCF) model that takes into account a mining plan produced in a technical report (like a Feasibility Study). Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 8, Eisaguirre in view of CFI teaches claim 4 as above. Eisaguirre further teaches:
wherein the at least one additional piece of data can be one or more of the following: known production, production per employee, estimated production, known price of a commodity, or estimated price of a commodity. ( see at least: [0030] Based on the results determined, the system may provide selected uses to a marketplace. iron found on a parcel may be offered at market rate on the marketplace [known price of a commodity])
Prior Art
The closest prior art, cited below, do not teach or suggest the recited claims 7, 9-10 and in any reasonable combination.
Mott ( US 20090228401 A1) reciting method and system for valuing investment including real estate. Mott teaches determining net-present value of investment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANAL A. ALSAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-5598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571)272-5587. 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.
/MANAL A. ALSAMIRI/Examiner, Art Unit 3628