MineRP IP Inc. - [2021] APO 3

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
MineRP IP Inc. [2021] APO 3

Patent Application: 2018200990

Title:A System and a Method for Depletable, Natural Asset Management, Accounting and Analysis

Patent Applicant:                   MineRP IP Inc.
Delegate:  M. G. Kraefft
Decision Date:  1 February 2021
Hearing Date:  Written submissions completed on 2 December 2020.

Catchwords: PATENTS – section 45 – examiner’s objection – whether invention is a manner of manufacture – data integration from multiple disparate sources to consistent format and/or spatial geometries in spatial data structure – no unusual technical effect in computer system carrying out the method – application refused.

Representation: Patent attorney for the applicant: FPA Patent Attorneys.

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2018200990

Title:A System and a Method for Depletable, Natural Asset Management, Accounting and Analysis

Patent Applicant: MineRP IP Inc.
Date of Decision: 1 February 2021
DECISION
The claims of the present application, as proposed to be amended, do not define a manner of manufacture. Moreover, there is nothing of substance in the body of the specification to overcome this finding.
The application is refused.
REASONS FOR DECISION
BACKGROUND

This matter concerns examiners’ objections under section 45 of the Patents Act 1990 that the application is not for a manner of manufacture. Application 2018200990 is a divisional application based on application 2016200936. The latter application was refused on the same ground in Mine RP Holdings (Pty) Limited, [2018] APO 41 (“the first decision”).
In a decision dated 8 April 2020, Mine RP Holdings (Pty) Limited, [2020] APO 17 (“the previous decision”), I found the claims of the present application, as proposed to be amended, did not define a manner of manufacture. On the other hand, I was not entirely certain that there was a lack of patentable subject matter in the specification. Consequently, I allowed the applicant a further opportunity to amend the specification and/or file further submissions.
The applicant filed submissions (“first submissions”), a declaration from an expert in the field and a statement of proposed amendments to the specification on 24 and 25 June 2020. An examination report, dated 7 July 2020, maintained the objection of lack of a manner of manufacture against the claims, as proposed to be amended. The applicant again requested to be heard.
The hearing was conducted by way of written submissions. The applicant filed further submissions (“second submissions”) and a further statement of proposed amendments on 2 December 2020.
The applicant also requested to amend the ownership details and to record a change of name of the applicant by way of assignment for the present application. The application is now proceeding in the name of MineRP IP Inc.
AMENDED SPECIFICATION
The specification, as presently proposed to be amended, concludes with nine claims. Claims 1 and 7 are independent claims. These claims read as follows.
1.A computational interface for operating between a first toolset comprising first technical data in a first file format relating to technical characteristics such as the amount, volume or concentration of a natural resource or reserve at a site and a second toolset comprising disparate second technical data in a second file format relating to technical characteristics such as the amount, volume or concentration of the natural resource or reserve at the site, the computational interface including:
computational means for amalgamating the first technical data and the second technical data into third hybrid technical data having a third file format;
a database including a three-dimensional spatial data structure corresponding to the site for storing the amalgamated third technical data, wherein the amalgamated third technical data is stored in the three-dimensional spatial data structure such that location of the amalgamated third technical data in the three-dimensional spatial data structure corresponds to the physical location of the natural resource or reserve within the site to which the amalgamated third technical data relates, the amalgamated third technical data stored in the form of a plurality of geo-blocks;
computational means for extracting and translating the third technical data into the first file format or the second file format and communicating the third technical data in the first file format or the second file format to the first geophysical toolset or the second geophysical toolset.
7.A natural resource or reserve monitoring system for maintaining a model of a site, the monitoring system comprising:
a first geophysical information toolset configured to generate a first set of technical data of observations of the site relating to a physical state of a natural resource or reserve at the site, wherein the physical state includes a first attribute set defining an amount, volume or concentration of the natural resource or reserve with reference to a first spatial geometry;
a second geophysical information toolset configured to generate a disparate second set of technical data of observations of the site relating to the physical state of the natural resource or reserve at the mine site, wherein the physical state includes a second attribute set defining an amount, volume or concentration of the natural resource or reserve with reference to a second spatial geometry, different to the first spatial geometry;
a computational interface in communication with the first and second geophysical information toolsets, including:
computer data storage including a three-dimensional spatial data structure corresponding to the site, the three-dimensional spatial data structure comprising a third hybrid attribute set defining an amount, volume or concentration of the natural resource or reserve with reference to a spatial geometry different to at least the first spatial geometry, the third attribute set comprising attributes derived by the computational interface based on attributes from both the first and second attribute sets and based on both the first and second spatial geometries, wherein the third attribute set includes at least one attribute derived from the first attribute set and not the second attribute set and at least one attribute derived from the second attribute set and not the first attribute set and wherein the third attribute set is stored in the three-dimensional spatial data structure such that location of the attributes in the third attribute set within the three-dimensional spatial data structure corresponds to the physical location of the natural resource or reserve within the site to which the geophysical information relates;
computational means for extracting into a third geophysical information toolset a fourth set of attributes from the three-dimensional data structure and defining them with reference to the first spatial geometry, the fourth set of attributes comprising at least one reconstituted attribute of the first attribute set and at least one attribute of the second attribute set.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
From the claims recited above, it may be noted that the emphasis of the presently claimed invention has changed somewhat from the claims the subject of the previous decision. At [38] of the previous decision, I found the latter claims were directed at two aspects. In one respect, the substance lay in the general nature of the data, its storage in a three-dimensional spatial data structure, the extraction and translation of that data in the data structure across different file formats commensurate with first and second geophysical information toolsets, and the management of updates of that data to modify the associated geophysical information in the data structure without performing a complete re-population of computer storage. In the other respect, the substance lay in the extraction of disparate data from disparate technical sources, the amalgamation and integration of that data into a spatially-referenced database, the translation of the amalgamated, integrated and spatially-referenced data into attributes of inventory or stock for use by an inventory management system, and the enabling of interoperability across the relevant systems and applications with appropriate file formatting and structuring.
The claims, as presently proposed to be amended, are more closely focused on creating hybrid technical data or attribute sets from disparate technical data from two information toolsets.
I would find the presently claimed invention resides in the following. Two information toolsets have disparate technical data relating to technical or physical characteristics of a natural resource or reserve at a site. The characteristics may include attribute sets defining such things as amount, volume or concentration of the natural resource or reserve with reference to first and second spatial geometries. A computational interface creates hybrid technical data or attribute sets derived from the data or attribute sets from the two information toolsets. The interface includes a database including a three-dimensional spatial data structure corresponding to the site. The hybrid technical data or attribute sets are stored in the spatial data structure such that their location in the data structure corresponds to the physical location of the natural resource or reserve within the site. The computational interface further comprise means for doing one of two things. In one sense (claim 1), the hybrid technical data is extracted and translated into first or second file formats and communicated to the first or second information toolset. In the second sense (claim 7), a further attribute set is extracted from the data structure into a third information toolset, where that attribute set is defined with reference to the first spatial geometry and comprises at least one attribute of each of the first and second attribute sets.
It would seem the objective generally remains as the provision of an integrated solution that translates and amalgamates disparate data sets from disparate sources, relating to a natural resource or reserve at a site, to a single common spatial geometry and/or in a single file format.
FIRST SUBMISSIONS
In its first submissions, the applicant similarly described the idea of the invention to make two separate mining technical systems interoperate. The means for carrying this out was to create a new dataset that is stored in a newly defined three-dimensional spatial data structure. That three-dimensional structure relates attributes from both of the mining technical systems, including attributes available uniquely to the respective systems, to a common spatial geometry and in a common file format. The means also include a configured computational system to extract the attributes from the three-dimensional spatial data structure and provide them in a dataset with a spatial geometry of the, now, interoperating mining technical system. These attributes include one or more attributes that were defined by another mining technical system with reference to a different spatial geometry. The applicant indicated that this was consistent with its expert’s declaration (“the van der Walt declaration”).
The applicant then referred to Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents, [2020] FCA 778, and adopted the two-stage analysis by Burley J, beginning at [91] in that decision. That is, there is an initial question of whether the claimed invention is for a mere scheme or business method of the type that is not the proper subject matter of a grant of letters patent. If the answer to that question is in the affirmative, the subsequent inquiry becomes whether the computer-implemented method is one where invention lay in the computerisation of the method, or whether the language of the claim involves merely plugging an unpatentable scheme into a computer. The applicant submitted that, if the initial question is answered in the negative, the inquiry need go no further.
In respect to the initial question, the applicant submitted that, when the invention was understood as above, it was apparent that the invention related to improvements in data translation and data storage. The useful effect was to improve or supplement the operation of devices for forming geophysical information toolsets by allowing interoperability.
The applicant further discussed the useful effect as follows. The generated geophysical information toolset has more attributes defining natural resource or reserve amount, volume or concentration than the first geophysical information toolset, whilst still being defined with reference to the first spatial geometry, making it useful for interoperability. Moreover, it is the structure of the database combined with a system for adapting the spatial coordinates and attributes for the database that provides a basis for the functionality of searching for and producing a new geophysical information toolset.
On this basis, the applicant submitted that the initial question is to be answered in the negative. In any case, the applicant proceeded with the subsequent question by referring to Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v InfoTrack Pty Ltd (“Encompass”), [2019] FCAFC 161. At [94]:-
“In considering whether the mere implementation by a computer of an abstract idea or scheme is enough to transform unpatentable subject matter into patentable subject matter, the Full Court in Research Affiliates (at [115]) resorted to the language of ‘artificial’ or ‘physical’ effects, ‘technical contribution’ and suchlike expressions, as used by the High Court in NRDC.”
The applicant further indicated that, in Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd (“RPL”), [2015] FCAFC 177, the Court asked whether the claimed invention can broadly be described as an improvement in computer technology. The applicant submitted that, in this case, the entire disclosure was concerned with ingenuity in a program or operation of a computer. The formation of the structured three-dimensional database to receive attributes from toolsets with different spatial geometries, allowing interoperability between computational, mining technical systems, was clearly a development and improvement in computer technology. The applicant submitted that the development’s use of a database and interface components did not render this generic. It was the way that they were used that represents the improvement in computer technology.
The applicant further stated that the artificial effect, physical effect or technical contribution was succinctly summarised in paragraph 7 of the van der Walt declaration. “A consequence is that queries can be made across databases to extract like or related information from the amalgamated spatial database and provide it to the accessing system”.
SECOND SUBMISSIONS
In the applicant’s second submissions, which were responsive to the most recent examination report, the applicant identified a key difference between the configured operation of the computing device of the present invention and the computing devices of the cases cited by the examiner. In Encompass, the applicant described the end result as causing any additional information to be presented to the user. In Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents (“Research Affiliates”), [2014] FCAFC 150, the end result was the generation of an index. In RPL, the end result was the provision of answers to questions.
By contrast, the applicant described the claimed invention as a technical process using a variety of disparate sensors to sense various mining technical characteristics at a site and generate corresponding technical data. A toolset uses that to form an estimate of amount, volume or concentration of a natural resource or reserve at the site.
The applicant indicated that a relevant end result was to supplement the technical data usable by such a toolset. For example, an end result is to supplement first technical data of a first toolset with second technical data from a second toolset. In essence this creates a third toolset, as a hybrid of the first and second toolsets. The applicant stated that the third toolset operating with reference to amalgamated third technical data facilitates substantial improvements in the formation of integrated, spatially located mining technical characteristics such as an estimate of the amount, volume or concentration of the natural resource or reserve over using just the first or just the second toolsets.
The applicant thus summarised the technical effect, with reference to the van der Walt declaration, as to provide a mining technical system that can collect, integrate and spatially reference data from a number of disparate mining technical systems to thereby form and estimate integrated spatially located mining technical characteristics.
CONSIDERATION
At [54] of the previous decision, I expressed the view that I was not entirely certain that there was a lack of patentable subject matter. I indicated that file formatting or re-formatting generally involved a file or data transformation that may provide a requisite technical effect. Thus, I left it open at [54] for the applicant to identify what was in the specification that, to a person skilled in the art at the relevant time, would have been regarded as more than mere generic computer implementation, or provided a requisite technical effect.
The van der Walt declaration does not make any references to the specification to identify any such points. In general terms, the declaration focuses on the effects and results of using the alleged invention against the background art.
The declaration also does not directly address any file formatting or re-formatting processes pertaining to the alleged invention. More specifically, there is nothing in the declaration describing any file or data transformation process, much less anything to suggest that such transformation involves or realises a technical effect. The specification is also largely devoid of such description. As far as it effectively goes, the specification describes the inter-operability between disparate expert systems being achieved by extracting and reconstituting spatial and attribute data from the amalgamated database into the file format and structure required by the specific expert system ([0065] as filed). The discussion is largely abstract.
The declaration, at [4], more broadly describes the alleged invention as a process of mapping unstructured data across various source datasets to a particular structured environment. In that environment, the declarant states that data objects are spatially indexed to enable them to host the aggregation of entities and properties from different source datasets.
There are some difficulties with the declarant’s approach, at least in respect to the disclosures in the specification. Firstly, it would appear the initial data from the source datasets is not unstructured. Rather, the data is structured and/or formatted in certain ways in the source datasets, although the structures and formats may not be consistent across all the source datasets. Secondly, it is not clear what is precisely meant by spatial indexing in this case. It would seem the hosting of an aggregation of entities and properties from different source datasets is not necessarily conditional upon a spatially-indexed environment, as the declarant appears to suggest. Rather, spatial indexing was a known method for enhancing data search and retrieval efficiency by redefining complex features, such as geometric ones, to simpler variants, such as bounding boxes around features. Paragraph [0056] of the specification as filed appears to loosely refer to this method through its discussion of geometries in line with attribute boundaries, amongst other things, leading to the adoption of a required minimum level of granularity. Paragraph [0053] merely refers to a spatially-indexed data structure encapsulating all spatial, design, descriptive and quantification attributes related to the source data and providing a multi-disciplinary perspective on any given spatial location. Data objects that were spatially indexed may be preferred for hosting aggregations of entities and properties, but spatial indexing does not appear to be essential. In any case, paragraph 4 of the declaration simply concludes by stating that the new dataset and objects are structured according to a common three-dimensional environment. This is the amalgamated spatial database. As an aside, I take the given spatial location to equate to the geo-x blocks referred to in the specification.

From paragraph [5] of the declaration, the result of the mapping process is the linking with each other of previous, independently obtained non-spatial properties and values in the three-dimensional structured environment. While that data is described in the declaration as non-spatial, it would appear some form of associated locational data was present for appropriate mapping to the three-dimensional database. Paragraph [8] of the declaration appears instructive in this respect by mentioning known mining technical systems, each with their own dataset using multiple different coordinate systems. Paragraph [0055] of the specification, as filed, similarly describes the extraction of mining technical discipline spatial geometries from disparate expert proprietary mining technical systems. That paragraph further mentions the deconstruction of dimension and fact data contained within such disparate systems. Whatever the case, it would appear the mapping process pertained at least to transitioning data from single or two-dimensional data descriptors to a three-dimensional structured environment. Assuming that is where the alleged invention lies, the question is whether the specification describes and claims patentable subject matter around that process.
At [8] of the declaration, the declarant stated that known mining technical systems, each with their own dataset using multiple different coordinate systems, were effectively unusable in combination. It may thus be said that mapping of disparate data sets to a consistent format and/or spatial geometry in a three-dimensional data structure reflective of a physical site has merit. At [28] of the first decision, the delegate acknowledged the usefulness of such a database. On the other hand, the delegate saw the usefulness as being in business.
I am concerned if the mapping process is described or claimed as principally no more than providing a consistent format or spatial geometry. That level of generality in describing the mapping process is abstract. As such, the process would merely be a scheme. In the specification, there is in substance no further detail about file or data transformations towards such consistency, or computer functionality directed at that purpose, to elevate the alleged invention to a technical level in this respect.
The applicant also appeared to make something of the three-dimensional database structure. The declarant acknowledged the prior existence of systems including various spatial databases. The declarant stated though that those databases were predominantly two-dimensional in that the “Z” coordinate was not applied in any amalgamation. The declarant further stated that three-dimensional spatial databases were typically proprietary. That may well have been so, as perhaps is also the case for the alleged invention, but that does not detract the position that three-dimensional spatial databases per se were known. For example, specific three-dimensional geographical information systems (“3D GIS”) tools and software were proprietary, although some such tools and software appeared to have been open-source as well.[1] In any case, there was nothing new of 3D GIS database modelling as a concept at the relevant time. The declarant in this case expressed extensive prior experience in GIS at [2] of the declaration.
[1] J. Basanow et al, “Towards 3D Spatial Data Infrastructures (3D-SDI) based on open standards – experiences, results and future issues”, January 2008, ResearchGate, Berlin, Germany, >
There remains a question of whether patentability may be found in the combination of the three-dimensional spatial database combined with a system for adapting spatial coordinates and attributes to that database, and the subsequent extraction of data therefrom in a required format. Again, at that level of generality, the description is abstract. There is nothing of substance in the specification beyond amalgamating the data, making the data formats and spatial geometry consistent in the database and extracting data therefrom into specific formats.
Paragraph [8] of the declaration again appears to be instructive. The declarant noted that, at the priority date, analytic processes were largely limited to within particular technical datasets, that is, of the known individual mining technical systems using their own different coordinate systems. The amalgamated three-dimensional spatial database allowed automated analytics across the technical datasets.
There would appear to be little doubt of that being a useful outcome. The contrast between separate analytics of individual disparate datasets, and the requirement for sense to be made of data therefrom in different formats and different coordinate systems before formulating a combined picture of a site, against analytics of datasets converted into a consistent format and/or spatial geometry in the amalgamated database would be plain. On the face of it, one could argue there is a technical effect. Firstly though, the alleged invention is not directed at the analytic processes. Even if it were, there would still be a question of where or what the technical effect might be with such analytics. Secondly, it is difficult to envisage a technical effect where the result is the analytics is simply more comprehendible when performed after data amalgamation has occurred rather than before. Moreover, while the declarant, at [8], made something of the amalgamated three-dimensional spatial database allowing automated analytics across technical datasets, it is not apparent that there is any technical enhancement over the analytics previously performed on individual disparate mining technical datasets. The specification is lacking in technical detail in these respects. Essentially, the specification does not in substance go beyond the concept of mapping datasets into consistent formats and/or spatial geometry in the spatial database. There is little computing functionality disclosed to facilitate that process in any technical way. The computing system is merely the intermediary.[2] It is described in general terms without an indication that any unusual technical effect is utilised.[3]
[2] RPL at [99].
[3] Research Affiliates at [108].
In general, the specification and drawings are telling in their abstractness. The previously mentioned [0065] is one example. Similarly, there are instances, [0060] for example, where the description of what the drawings disclose, on the face of it, cannot be readily matched to the illustrations. While the latter paragraph states that Figure 8 reflects a mining features database, the subsequent discussion relates to a collection of mining features and that attributes can infer a number of characteristics with relevance defined by the mining company’s requirements and reporting codes. The paragraph concludes by stating that analytical possibilities are opened up due to ability to utilize existing business intelligence tools and methods on inventory and stock. The nature of the specification in general would appear to support the position that there were no difficulties at the relevant time in having known computer systems carry out the method.
CONCLUSION
I conclude the claims of the present application, as proposed to be amended, do not define a manner of manufacture. Moreover, I find there is nothing of substance in the body of the specification to overcome this finding.
It is appropriate that the application be refused.
M. G. Kraefft
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents