DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed April 3, 2025. Claims 1-16 are pending. Claims 1 and 16 are the independent claims. The instant application is a continuation in part of Application No. 17615040 now U.S. Patent No. 12279564.
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 Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 16 is in improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 is are independent claims masquerading as a dependent claim.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 has been interpreted as an independent claim for the purpose of examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 8 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 4, the phrase "preferably also" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Examiner interpreted the claim to read that the 2D or 3D scale representation may or may not be part of the invention for the purposes of examination.
Appropriate correction required.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Appropriate correction required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 14 and 16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12279564 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The claims are rejected over independent 1 8 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12279564, wherein it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to omit, from the independent claims, one or more method step(s): for each of at least one tree within a forecast region, where the tree has not been felled; wherein the associating comprises marketing at least one identified plane on the trunk of the tree; and wherein the harvesting action comprises cutting the trunk of the tree at the least one identified place. Applicant appears to be attempting to broaden the scope of the parent application/patent and capture scope which was forgone during prosecution of the parent application.
The table below maps the conflicting claims between the instant application and U.S. Patent No. 12279564.
App No. 19169584
USPN 12279564
Claim 1
--for each of at least one tree within a forecast region, where the tree has not been felled
-- wherein the associating comprises marketing at least one identified plane on the trunk of the tree
--wherein the harvesting action comprises cutting the trunk of the tree at the least one identified place
Claim 1
Claim 14
Claims 8, 16
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent Claims 1 and 16, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of harvest planning. This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, harvest planning (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to generating and performing a harvesting plan for objects (trees) within a forest region, wherein harvest planning is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. See 2106.04(a). Further all of the steps of “obtaining”, “assigning”, “associating”, “obtaining”, “associating”, “recognizing”, “obtaining”, “generating” and “performing” recite functions of the harvest planning are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The intended purpose of independent claims 1 and 16 appears to be harvest objects (trees) in a forest using a harvester.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice, specifically in the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The exceptions are the harvester and unmanned vehicle (each used for their ordinary purpose) and additional limitations of generic computer elements: computer readable storage medium storing instructions, processing circuitry, harvesting system and sensor. See 2106.04(a).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See 2106.04(a)), the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: computer readable storage medium storing instructions, processing circuitry, harvesting system and sensor. These generic computing components are merely used to receive/access, process or display data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figure 3). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's harvest planning in the general field of business management/marketing and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a) regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), claims 1-16 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited computer readable storage medium storing instructions, processing circuitry, harvesting system," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing and under the MPEP 2106.04(a), that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Regarding the recited unmanned vehicle and harvester these ‘other machinery’ (see MPEP § 2106.05(f),) are recited at a high level of generality and used for their ordinary and routine purpose. The claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a unmanned vehicle and harvester these. These limitations only recite outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished. Further the final method step directed to performing, by a harvester, the plurality of actions of the generated harvesting plan is directed to an insignificant application of the abstract idea (see discussion below).
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of assigning an object ID to the object, associating a marker with the object, obtaining a harvesting decision, associating the market, recognizing a plurality of markers, generating a harvesting plan and performing the plurality of harvesting actions all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a computer readable storage medium storing instructions, processing circuitry, harvesting system nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The recited harvester and unmanned vehicle are directed to ‘other machinery’ used for the ordinary purpose recited a high level of generality such that the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic other machinery. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the steps obtaining information associated with an object is directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
Further regarding the method step directed to performing, by the harvester, the plurality of harvesting actions of the generated plan this step is directed to an insignificant application of the abstract idea – as the harvester is used in its ordinary capacity. As described in MPEP § 2106.05(f), additional elements that invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process will generally not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. See, e.g., Versata Development Group v. SAP America, 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine to add significantly more, it must “play a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly”).
(2) Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field. TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. The court then turned to the additional elements of performing these functions using a telephone unit and a server and noted that these elements were being used in their ordinary capacity (i.e., the telephone unit is used to make calls and operate as a digital camera including compressing images and transmitting those images, and the server simply receives data, extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the digital images based on the extracted information). 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. In other words, the claims invoked the telephone unit and server merely as tools to execute the abstract idea. Thus, the court found that the additional elements did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea on a telephone network without any recitation of details of how to carry out the abstract idea.
Other examples where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include: vi. A method of assigning hair designs to balance head shape with a final step of using a tool (scissors) to cut the hair, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant application: i. Cutting hair after first determining the hair style, In re Brown, 645 Fed. App'x 1014, 1016-1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic computer readable storage medium storing instructions, processing circuitry, harvesting system are each recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of retrieving, processing or displaying data. The generic processor/computer merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the retrieving and displaying steps that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-15, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of harvest planning and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1 and 16.
Claim 2 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the harvesting criterium to at least ONE of the time it takes the harvester to perform the harvesting actions of the generated harvesting plan is minimized; the fuel consumed by the harvester while performing the harvesting actions of the generated harvesting plan is minimized; one or more sustainability or nature preserve factors are taken into consideration; or the value of wood that is cut while performing the harvesting actions of the generated harvesting plan is maximized (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 3 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the harvesting actions to generating a harvesting path for the harvester to follow (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 4 further limits the abstract idea by generating the harvesting path based on the plurality of markers (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 5 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the object to a tree, a part of a tree, a boundary of an area, an area un-fitted for a harvester to travel across, an existing path in the forest region, an ancient remnant or monument, a fallen tree with environmental heritage value, OR another biological object of protection (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 6 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the object ID to be unique (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 7 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the object ID to group of objects (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 8 further limits the abstract idea by limits the category the object belongs to category to which the object belongs, such as tree, boulder, or bog, a sub-category within one such category such as tree with a height exceeding a predetermined threshold value, or tree of a given species; or a harvesting decision suitable for the object, such as tree to be harvested, tree not to be harvested or area or object to be avoided (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 9 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the marker recognition using digital image processing or chemical information (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 10 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the harvesting decision to harvest the object, how to harvest the object, to not harvest the object or to avoid a location where the object is situated OR a specified area within which the tree is situated. (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 11 further limits the abstract idea by generating a scale 2d to #D presentation or at part of the forest OR updating scale representation of a part of the forecast by adding a marker (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 12 further limits the abstract idea by generating 2D to #D representation comprising two sections visual distinguishable from each other by color or intensity (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 13 further limits the abstract idea by presenting the 2D/3D scale to a user output device (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 14 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the marker to a physical marker and attaching the physical marker to the tree (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 15 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the marker to a digital marker (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding claims 1-16, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a computer readable storage medium storing instructions, processing circuitry, harvesting system at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 3). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. memory, processor, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a computer readable storage medium storing instructions, processing circuitry, harvesting system merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 4). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible 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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-10, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennet et al., Wood Tracking System Implementation Project in Ghana (2011) in view of Vian et al., U.S. Patent No. 9117185.
Regarding Claims 1 and 16, Bennet et al. discloses a method
For each at least ONE object (e.g. tree) within a forest region:
Obtaining, using at least one sensor (Section 4.04, Pages 24, 25), information associated with the object (Stock Survey/Stock Map, Page 8; timber tracking/tracing; Page 24; pre harvest planning – Page 27; Annex 1: tree information form, Page 33; Annex 7: New design of the Tree Information Form: Page 39);
Assigning an object identity (ID) to the object based on the obtained sensor information (pre-harvest planning, Page 8; Reserve Situation – Page 10 – stock survey number, compartment number, reserve name, tree number; timber labeling/marking; Page 26, Section 4.04, Pages 24, 25; tree information form, Page 34; Annex 7: New design of the Tree Information Form: Page 39);
Associating a marker with the object and obtained sensor information OR the object ID assigned to the object (timber labeling/marking; Section 4.04, Pages 24, 25; Pre-harvest planning Section 4.1, Pages 26, tree information form, Page 34; Annex 7: New design of the Tree Information Form: Page 39);
Obtaining a harvesting decision, using the processing circuitry (Section 4.02, Page 23; Section 4.04, Pages 24, 25), based on the obtained information assigned to the object ID (Harvest, Page 14; pre-harvest inspection Page 27; Section 4.3 Harvest Pages 27, 28);
Recognizing a plurality of the markers (tracking/tracing; Section 4.0 Pages 24-26, Section 4.04, Pages 24, 25; Section 4.3 Harvest Pages 27, 28);
For each recognized marker obtaining a harvesting decision for the object associated with the marker (e.g. yield list – Page 27; Harvest, Pages 14; Section 4.3 Harvest Pages 27, 28);
Generating a harvesting plan (e.g. yield list) to comprise a plurality of harvesting actions to be taken performed in a specific order based on the obtained harvesting decisions such that it fulfills at least ONE harvesting criterium (Harvest, Pages 14, 28, 30);
Performing by a harvester (e.g. contractor) the plurality of harvesting actions of the generated harvesting plan (Harvest, Pages 14; Section 4.3 Harvest Pages 27, 28).
Bennet et al. also discloses the well-known use of digital, physical and chemical markers/labels - (e.g. RFID, 59, 60) which enable one to read/obtain object ID and other timber/wood/tree specific information.
Bennet et al. also discloses a system for performing the method steps (Section 4.02, Page 23; Section 4.04, Pages 24, 25).
While it is well-known and common to utilize unmanned vehicles (autonomous, driverless – drones, devices, cars, robots, tractors, etc.) to map forests/identify objects (trees, etc.) within a forest region (see at least: Meyers et al., U.S. Patent No. 10527398 (Figures 2, 4; Claims 1, 7-10, 13, 14, 19, 23); Parker et al., Robotics in forestry (2016)) Bennet et al. does not disclose an unmanned vehicle for obtaining information associated with at least one object within a forest region as claimed.
Vian et al., from the same field of endeavor of harvest planning, discloses a system (Figure 13 – processor, memory, etc.) and method comprising:
for each of at least one object within a forest region:
Obtaining, using at least one sensor of an un-manned vehicle moving under the canopy (e.g. ground vehicle) in a forest region, information associated with the object (ground vehicle – ground sensors; Figure 1, Elements 116, 118 120, 120, 124; Figure 2, Element 222; Figure 8; Column 3, Lines 53-68; Column 4, Lines 8-25; Column 6, Lines 48-59; Column 15, Lines 50-68; Column 16, Lines 1-18; Claims 1, 4, 5, 14);
Generating a harvesting plan (mission) to comprise a plurality of harvesting actions to be performed in a specified order based on the obtained harvesting decisions and such that it fulfills at least one harvesting criterium (Figures 4, 12; Column 18, Lines 1-37; Column 20, Lines 30-40; Claims 7, 8);
Performing, by a harvester, the plurality of harvesting actions of the generated harvesting plan (Figures 4, 12; Column 18, Lines 1-37; Column 20, Lines 30-40; Claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Bennet et al. would have benefited from the well-known utilization of unmanned vehicles to obtain information associated with at least one object in a forest region in view of the disclosure of Vian et al., since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 2, Bennet et al. discloses a system and method wherein harvesting criterium to at least ONE of the time it takes the harvester to perform the harvesting actions of the generated harvesting plan is minimized OR the fuel consumed by the harvester while performing the harvesting actions of the generated harvesting plan is minimized OR one or more sustainability or nature preserve factors are taken into consideration OR the value of wood that is cut while performing the harvesting actions of the generated harvesting plan is maximized (Bullets Page 8).
Regarding Claim 5, Bennet et al. discloses a system and method wherein each object is a tree, a part of a tree, OR a boundary of an area, OR an area un-fitted for a harvester to travel across, OR an existing path in the forest region, OR an ancient remnant or monument, OR a fallen tree with environmental heritage value, OR another biological object of protection (Annex 7: New design of the Tree Information Form: Page 39).
Regarding Claim 6, Bennet et al. discloses a system and method wherein the object ID is a unique number that separates an object from every other object (pre-harvest planning, Page 8; Reserve Situation – Page 10 – stock survey number, compartment number, reserve name, tree number; timber labeling/marking; Page 26, Section 4.04, Pages 24, 25; tree information form, Page 34; ; Annex 7: New design of the Tree Information Form: Page 39; Marking Systems, Pages 50-51).
Regarding Claim 7, Bennet et al. discloses a system and method wherein the object ID is information that demotes the object belonging to a group of objects that have at least one common characteristics (e.g. location mark, compartment number, species; Bullets Pages 9, 10; Annex 1 & 7).
Regarding Claim 8, Bennet et al. discloses a system and method wherein the common characteristics is a category the object belongs to category to which the object belongs, such as tree, boulder, or bog, a sub-category within one such category such as tree with a height exceeding a predetermined threshold value, or tree of a given species or a harvesting decision suitable for the object, such as tree to be harvested, tree not to be harvested or area or object to be avoided (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea (e.g. compartment number, species, length, tree number, ; Bullets Pages 8-10; Annex 1 & 7).
Regarding Claim 9, Bennet et al. discloses a system and method wherein recognizing each of the plurality of markers comprises: using digital image processing of data received from an imaging sensor, the processing comprising segmentation, feature recognition or color recognition, particularly for identifying biological species; OR recognition of chemical information using an electronic sniffer (e.g. chemical tracer paint, chemical and genetic fingerprinting, aroma tagging; Pages 60-63).
Regarding Claim 10, Bennet et al. discloses a system and method wherein each harvesting decision is a decision to harvest the object, OR how to harvest the object, OR to not harvest the object OR to avoid a location where the object is situated or a specified area within which the tree is situated (protection zones/boundaries; Bullets Page 7; stock survey/map, Page 8; yield list/map, Pages 8, 10, 27).
Regarding Claim 14, Bennet et al. discloses a system and method wherein the marker is a physical marker and wherein associating the marker with the tree comprises attaching the physical marker to the tree or a location in the immediate vicinity of the tree, or placing the marker on or in a vicinity of the tree (Section 4.05-4.06, Pages 25, 26; Pages 51, 52).
Regarding Claim 15, Bennet et al. discloses a system and method wherein the marker is a digital marker and wherein associating the marker with the tree and the harvesting decision comprises storing the marker in association with the object identity (ID) and the harvesting decision in a memory (Section 4.02, Page 23; Section 4,04, Pages 24, 25; Pages 51, 52).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennet et al., Wood Tracking System Implementation Project in Ghana (2011) in view of Vian et al., U.S. Patent No. 9117185 as applied to the claims above and further in view of Hamilton, U.S. Patent No. 10905054.
Regarding Claim 3, while generate/determining harvesting paths/routes is old and well-known (see at least Anderson, U.S. Patent No. 20050197175; Maor, U.S. Patent No. 20190166765) Bennet et al. does not disclose generate or following a harvesting path as claimed.
Hamilton, from the same field of endeavor of harvest planning, discloses a system and method comprising generating the harvesting plan to comprise a plurality of harvesting actions comprises generating a harvesting path for the harvester to follow, from a defined starting point to a defined end point, wherein performing, by the harvester, the plurality of harvesting actions of the generated harvesting plan comprises following the generated harvesting path (route; Abstract; Column 6, Lines 35-55; Column 12, Lines 5-28; Figure 1, Element 178; Figure 3, Element 320; Claims 1-3).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Bennet et al. and Vian et al. would have benefited from generating a harvesting path for the harvester to follow in view of the disclosure of Hamilton, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 4, Bennet et al. does not disclose generating a harvesting path as discussed above.
Vian et al. discloses a system and method further comprising generating a harvesting path based on a plurality of markers (locations, labels, tags) associated with the object (Figures 4, 12; Column 18, Lines 1-37; Column 20, Lines 30-40).
While utilizing 2D or 3D (e.g. point clouds) to map/generate a 2D/3D representation of a forecast is old and very well-known Bennet et al. does not disclose generating a harvesting path based on object markers OR 2D/3D representation of at least part of a forest as claimed.
Official notice is taken that generating a harvesting path (route) based on a to scale 2D or 3D representation of at least a part of the forest is old and well known. Support for this old and well-known fact can be found in at least the following references: Liang et al., Terrestrial laser scanning in forest inventories 2016; Putkonen et al., U.S. Patent No. 20170075354 Paragraphs 4, 12; Gurzoni et al., U.S. Patent No. 10891482; Figures 8, 9; Paragraphs 33, 74-76.
Claims 11-13 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennet et al., Wood Tracking System Implementation Project in Ghana (2011) in view of Vian et al., U.S. Patent No. 9117185 as applied to the claims above and further in view of Veronesi 20230102406.
Regarding Claim 11, Bennet et al. does not disclose generating 2R or 3D representation as claimed.
Veronesi, from the same field of endeavor of forestry, discloses a system and method further comprising generating a to scale 2D or 3D representation of at least a part of the forest region, OR updating a to scale 2D or 3D representation of at least a part of the forest region by adding the marker associated with the object to the 2D or 3D representation (Paragraph 53; Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Bennet et al. would have benefited from the well-known generating a to scale 2D or 3D representation of at least a part of the forest region, OR updating a to scale 2D or 3D representation of at least a part of the forest region by adding the marker associated with the object to the 2D or 3D representation in view of the disclosure of Veronesi, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 12, Bennet et al. does not disclose generating 2R or 3D representation as claimed.
Veronesi, from the same field of endeavor of forestry, discloses a system and method wherein generating the to scale 2D or 3D representation of at least a part of the forest region comprises generating the to scale 2D or 3D representation to comprise at least two sections that are visually distinguishable from each other by color or intensity (Figures 4, 5A, 5B).
Regarding Claim 13, Bennet et al. does not disclose generating 2R or 3D representation as claimed.
Veronesi, from the same field of endeavor of forestry, discloses a system and method further comprising presenting the to scale 2D or 3D representation visually to a user on an output device (Abstract; Paragraphs 33, 49; Figures 4, 5A, 5B; Figure 9, Element 928).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sorvik, U.S. Patent No. 6341632 discloses a harvesting system and method comprising automatically controlling harvesting machine in accordance with a generated harvesting plan Claims 2-4).
Green, U.S. Patent No. 10095995 discloses forest inventory management system including determine forest/tree harvesting path/pathways.
McPeek, U.S. Patent No. 9939417 discloses a system and method for agricultural planning including marking/unique ID for each plant/tree, GPS location tracking and selective harvesting.
MUELLER-SIM et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20220051154 discloses a harvest planning/management system and method comprising assigning ID to plant (object), associating marker with object and obtaining a harvesting decision for the object based on the ID (Paragraphs 3, 19, 20, 35).
NOGUCHI et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170118925 discloses a harvesting system and method utilizing image analysis to make harvesting decisions (Figure 31).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights