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 03/29/2025. Claims 1-5 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an method for claimed invention. Therefore, claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
A computer implemented method for dynamically generating a farm field boundary separating tillable acres from non-tillable acres comprising:
receiving a location information input;
displaying a map depicting an area represented by the location information input on a display device;
receiving an input of one or more land parcel selections, wherein each of the one or more land parcel selections has a boundary;
retrieving a first geospatial dataset that overlaps the one or more land parcel selections;
trimming the first geospatial dataset to match the boundaries of the one or more land parcel selections to create trimmed parcel boundaries;
comparing the trimmed parcel boundaries to a minimum allowed acreage (a person can mentally compare the size of the trimmed parcel boundaries with the minimum allowed acreage), and creating a farm field if the area of the trimmed parcel boundaries is greater than the minimum allowed acreage;
retrieving a second geospatial dataset that overlaps the one or more land parcel selections, the second geospatial dataset being indicative of a land use for the farm field; and
assigning an acreage type to the farm field using a second geospatial dataset, the acreage type indicating tillable and non-tillable acres of the farm field.
As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong I.
101 Analysis - Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a "practical application."
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”)
A computer implemented method for dynamically generating a farm field boundary separating tillable acres from non-tillable acres comprising:
receiving a location information input;
displaying a map depicting an area represented by the location information input on a display device;
receiving an input of one or more land parcel selections, wherein each of the one or more land parcel selections has a boundary;
retrieving a first geospatial dataset that overlaps the one or more land parcel selections;
trimming the first geospatial dataset to match the boundaries of the one or more land parcel selections to create trimmed parcel boundaries;
comparing the trimmed parcel boundaries to a minimum allowed acreage (a person can mentally compare the size of the trimmed parcel boundaries with the minimum allowed acreage), and creating a farm field if the area of the trimmed parcel boundaries is greater than the minimum allowed acreage;
retrieving a second geospatial dataset that overlaps the one or more land parcel selections, the second geospatial dataset being indicative of a land use for the farm field; and
assigning an acreage type to the farm field using a second geospatial dataset, the acreage type indicating tillable and non-tillable acres of the farm field.
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitation of “receiving a location information input”, “receiving an input of one or more land parcel selections, wherein each of the one or more land parcel selections has a boundary”, “retrieving a first geospatial dataset that overlaps the one or more land parcel selections”, and “retrieving a second geospatial dataset that overlaps the one or more land parcel selections, the second geospatial dataset being indicative of a land use for the farm field” the examiner submits that this limitation is merely an insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data.
Regarding the additional limitation of “displaying a map depicting an area represented by the location information input on a display device” the examiner submits that this limitation is merely an insignificant extra solution activity of displaying data.
Regarding the additional limitation of “trimming the first geospatial dataset to match the boundaries of the one or more land parcel selections to create trimmed parcel boundaries” the examiner submits that this limitation is merely an insignificant extra solution activity of manipulating data.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitations add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A, Prong II, the additional element of limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment employs generic computer functions to execute the abstract idea and, therefore does not add significantly more. Limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Additionally, as discussed above, the limitations *, *, and * as recited above, are considered insignificant extra solution activities.
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra solution activity in Step 2A must be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if the element is more than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. In this case, the additional limitations of *, *, and * are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities, because they have all been deemed insignificant extra solution activity by one or more Courts; see at least MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g)
“receiving a location information input”, “receiving an input of one or more land parcel selections, wherein each of the one or more land parcel selections has a boundary”, “retrieving a first geospatial dataset that overlaps the one or more land parcel selections”, and “retrieving a second geospatial dataset that overlaps the one or more land parcel selections, the second geospatial dataset being indicative of a land use for the farm field”… is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and
“displaying a map depicting an area represented by the location information input on a display device” … is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and
“trimming the first geospatial dataset to match the boundaries of the one or more land parcel selections to create trimmed parcel boundaries” … is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity under Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d at 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d at 1937.
Because the claims fail to recite anything sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, independent claim 1 is patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2, 3, and 5 merely narrow the data gathering step. Therefore, claims 2, 3, and 5 are rejected for the same reasoning.
Claim 4 merely narrows the data manipulating step. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected for the same reasoning.
Examiner encourages Applicant to set an interview to discuss potential amendments for overcoming the above rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Zhou et al. (A Coarse-to-Fine Approach for Urban Land Use Mapping Based on Multisource Geospatial Data; hereafter Zhou) as evidenced by Rodriguez et al. (US 20200258174 A1; hereafter Rodriguez).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou discloses a computer implemented method for dynamically generating a farm field boundary separating tillable acres from non-tillable acres comprising:
receiving a location information input ([Fig. 1]; Depicts the location area information for generating the boundaries.
[Fig. 2]; Depicts the flowchart of the method where the study area is obtained at procedure 1);
receiving an input of one or more land parcel selections, wherein each of the one or more land parcel selections has a boundary ([Fig. 2 & Section 3B.]; “This study uses land parcels as the basic unit, and assumes that the same land parcel has homogeneous socio-economic function. Roads and water are the boundaries of natural division of urban areas; thus, we use administrative boundaries, OSM road networks, and water boundaries to divide urban land into parcels.”);
retrieving a first geospatial dataset that overlaps the one or more land parcel selections ([Section 3C2]; “By referring to the Sentinel-2 image (including both truecolor and false-color composite images) and high-resolution images from Google Earth and Baidu map, we annotate the training samples with prominent characteristics for both coarse- and fine-grained classification.”);
trimming the first geospatial dataset to match the boundaries of the one or more land parcel selections to create trimmed parcel boundaries ([Section 3C3 & Fig. 5]; “Based on the coarse-grained training samples, RF model can be trained and then leveraged to classify the Sentinel-2 image of the study area in pixel level. According to the classification results, the area proportion of built-up region in each parcel is calculated.”);
retrieving a second geospatial dataset that overlaps the one or more land parcel selections, the second geospatial dataset being indicative of a land use for the farm field ([Section 2]; “POI and AOI data are crawled from Baidu map, including attribute information such as name, category and geographic coordinates. The original data category is complex and there is data redundancy. Considering the large majority of POIs and AOIs are distributed in the build-up region, they are reclassified into 4 level-1 and 9 level-2 categories of the buildup region, and the data that are not related to land uses are removed. Finally, 367,732 POIs and 19,848 AOIs are obtained.”); and
assigning an acreage type to the farm field using a second geospatial dataset, the acreage type indicating tillable and non-tillable acres of the farm field. ([Section 4A2 & Fig. 6]; “The fine-grained classification maps are shown in Fig. 6(b) (level-1) and Fig. 6(e) (level-2). Based on features extracted from RSI and POIs, the two-stage approach can achieve an OA and kappa coefficient of 73% and 0.68 for leve-1 classification, while that of level-2 are 62% and 0.58, as shown in Fig. 7(b)(e) and Fig. 8(b)(e).”)
Although Zhou discusses map generation and filtering the boundaries within the selected area, Zhou does not explicitly teach displaying the map and comparing the boundaries to minimum allowed acreage.
However Rodriguez does teach displaying a map depicting an area represented by the location information input on a display device ([0095]; “In FIG. 30, the graphical user interface is operable to display the relevant geographic information when a user selects a particular tract of land.”);
comparing the trimmed parcel boundaries to a minimum allowed acreage, and creating a farm field if the area of the trimmed parcel boundaries is greater than the minimum allowed acreage; ([0096]; “The graphical user interface is operable to filter and search tracts of land by building parameters such as area, density, development, floor area ratio, folio number, jurisdiction, land use type, max height, max lot coverage, minimum lot size, minimum lot width”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou with Rodriguez. This modification would have been obvious because both Zhou and Rodriguez cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (agricultural map generation) and it would have been obvious to display a map of the area selected so that the user can view the results of the map generation. In addition it would have been beneficial to filter out land parcels that do not meet a minimum acreage requirement when a minimum acreage is required for the user for their agricultural needs.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Zhou as evidenced by Rodriguez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eraker et al. (US 20130254670 A1; hereafter Eraker).
Regarding claim 2, Zhou in combination with Rodriguez discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Eraker in the same field of endeavor teaches displaying a map depicting an area represented by the location information input on a display comprises receiving tax parcel data from a database and displaying land ownership boundary data contained in the tax parcel data on the map. ([0032]; “Some embodiments of the system can overlay data from the Data Set 104 as overlay layers (e.g., tax parcel boundaries, parks, schools, etc.) on a base layer (e.g., a satellite image, aerial photo, etc.).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou with Rodriguez and Eraker. This modification would have been obvious because both Zhou, Rodriguez, and Eraker cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (agricultural map generation) and it would have been beneficial to gather tax land parcels data to filter unwanted data.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious in view of Zhou as evidenced by Rodriguez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guo et al. (US 11321943 B2; hereafter Guo).
Regarding claim 3, Zhou in combination with Rodriguez discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Guo in the same field of endeavor teaches the first geospatial dataset comprises a Common Land Units dataset. ([col. 3 lines 50-55]; “As will be discussed in detail below, images with associated crop relevant information included may comprise human labeled images, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Cropland data layer (CDL) data, United States Farm Service Agency (FSA) Common Land Units (CLU) data, ground truth data, and/or the like.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou with Rodriguez and Guo. This modification would have been obvious because both Zhou, Rodriguez, and Guo cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (agricultural map generation) and it would have been beneficial to gather CLU since this data provides beneficial data for farm land.
Regarding claim 5, Zhou in combination with Rodriguez discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally Guo in the same field of endeavor teaches the second geospatial dataset comprises a Cropland Data Layer dataset. ([col. 3 lines 50-55]; “As will be discussed in detail below, images with associated crop relevant information included may comprise human labeled images, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Cropland data layer (CDL) data, United States Farm Service Agency (FSA) Common Land Units (CLU) data, ground truth data, and/or the like.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhou with Rodriguez and Guo. This modification would have been obvious because both Zhou, Rodriguez, and Guo cover subject matter within the same field of endeavor (agricultural map generation) and it would have been beneficial to gather CDL since this data provides beneficial data for farm land.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON SUNG EUN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, James Lee can be reached on (571) 270-5965. 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.S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3668
/JUSTIN S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3668
Prosecution Insights