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 .
The prior 35 USC 101 rejections issued in the final rejection on 09/05/2024, which were withdrawn in the non final rejection mailed on: 03/26/2025 were withdrawn on the basis that the flight of aircraft was controlled/flown according to the flight plan (for example claim 1 filed on 03/05/2025). At the time, claim 14 and 27 were also interpreted in this manner mentioned above; however, upon additional consideration/assessment, the phrase ‘during a flight associated with flight plan’ nested into the measurement limitations of claims 14 and 27 only provide context of when data is being measured and not necessarily claiming control of the aircraft to fly according to the flight plan as initially interpreted (and thus, fails to show the additional elements are integrated into technology and also fails to show the additional elements are sufficient to be ‘significantly more’ with respect to Step 2A - prong 2 and Step 2B, respectively). Accordingly, this non-final addresses this concern , as explained in the 35 USC 101 rejections below for claims 14-16 and 27-30. The examiner suggests an interview to resolve the remaining issues explained below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/26/2025 and 09/15/2025 are being considered by the examiner.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12 and 13 are allowed.
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 14-16 and 18 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.
With regards claim 14, it recites “… wherein the plurality of known assets comprise at least one of infrastructure and equipment that can potentially emit trace gasses, wherein each cluster comprises a closed-shape polygon, where each cluster is created … and wherein each cluster has a substantially similar area …”. It is unclear/indefinite which are the alternatives directed to the ‘at least one language’. For purposes of examination, the examiner will assume an interpretation of ‘at least one of’ being strictly directed to infrastructure and/or equipment, and not directed to and including ‘each cluster ….’. The examiner suggests the applicant consider amending/clarifying to ‘wherein the plurality of known assets comprise at least one of a known infrastructure asset and known equipment asset under (assuming applicant intended the examiner’s interpretation stated above). Also it is unclear/indefinite that the language ‘potentially emit trace gases’, comes from the infrastructure or equipment (or both?). For purposes of examination the examiner will additionally make an interpretation that the ‘potentially emit trace gases’ come from both infrastructure and equipment (and should the applicant have intended this additional interpretation, then the examiner suggests the applicant consider a clarification such as : “… wherein, the one or more known assets potentially emit trace gases …”.
With regards to claims 15, 16 and 18, they do not resolve the 35 USC 112 deficiencies of claim 14 above, and thus, they are rejected under similar rationale.
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 14 -16, 18 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 14
With regards to claim 14, the claim is directed to a statutory category.
Step 2a, prong 1
The claim recites the following, for which the bolded items are interpreted to encompass steps that fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion.
Claim 14: A system comprising: an aerial vehicle; a global positioning system disposed on the aerial vehicle to determine a location of the aerial vehicle; at least one sensor disposed on the aerial vehicle, the at least one sensor configured to generate sensor data; and a processor having addressable memory, the processor configured to: receive spatial locations of a plurality of known assets; determine a plurality of clusters based on the received spatial locations of the plurality of known assets, wherein each of the plurality of clusters includes at least two or more known assets of the plurality of known assets, and wherein the plurality of clusters have a spatial relationship with adjacent clusters; determine a bound for each asset of the plurality of known assets in each cluster; determine a flight plan for the aerial vehicle for each cluster, wherein the flight plan surveys each asset in each cluster traversing from asset to asset of the at least two or more known assets in each cluster; and measure trace gas data on the at least two or more known assets included in each cluster during a flight associated with the flight plan of the aerial vehicle; wherein the plurality of known assets comprise at least one of: infrastructure and equipment that can potentially emit trace gasses, wherein each cluster comprises a closed-shape polygon, wherein each cluster is created so as to have an overlap with adjacent clusters, and wherein each cluster has a substantially similar area of coverage as each adjacent cluster.
More specifically, the limitations ‘ .. determine a location of the aerial vehicle …’, ‘generate sensor data …’, maybe be practically performed in the human mind. For example, a human can mentally evaluate location data belonging to an aerial vehicle and also manually via pen and paper, write down sensor data. With respect to the limitations ‘ … determine a plurality of clusters based on the received spatial locations of the plurality of known assets, wherein each of the plurality of clusters includes at least two or more known assets of the plurality of known assets, and wherein the plurality of clusters have a spatial relationship with adjacent clusters; determine a bound for each asset of the plurality of known assets in each cluster; determine a flight plan for the aerial vehicle for each cluster, wherein the flight plan surveys each asset in each cluster traversing from asset to asset of the at least two or more known assets in each cluster’ , a human/person can mentally evaluate received spatial location data and make a judgement for a plurality of clusters having a special relationship with adjacent clusters, and a human/person can also mentally evaluate a flight plan and make a judgment to determine a flight plan for each cluster.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The claim recites additional elements/limitations of:
“an aerial vehicle; a global positioning system disposed on the aerial vehicle …; at least one sensor disposed on the aerial vehicle, the at least one sensor …”. These additional elements are merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception ( an aeronautical environment having sensor(s)). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
“and a processor having addressable memory, the processor configured to:”. These additional elements are merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
“receive spatial locations of a plurality of known assets; and measure trace gas data on the at least two or more known assets included in each cluster during a flight associated with the flight plan of the aerial vehicle; wherein the plurality of known assets comprise at least one of: infrastructure and equipment that can potentially emit trace gasses, wherein each cluster comprises a closed-shape polygon, wherein each cluster is created so as to have an overlap with adjacent clusters, and wherein each cluster has a substantially similar area of coverage as each adjacent cluster”. These additional elements are merely indicating adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (data collection), such that spatial locations and trace gas data are collected/received. More specifically it is noted that the ‘measure’ step is interpreted as obtaining /receiving trace gas data as ‘measure’ is nominally recited with no details on how measurement is performed. Furthermore, although ‘a flight associated with the flight plan of the aerial vehicle’ is recited, it is only phrased to place context of when the trace gas data is being measured (there is no active/positive recitation of directing the aerial vehicle to fly according to the flighty plan). The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, these additional elements identified above when considered individually or in combination , do not integrate the exception into a practical application
Step 2B
As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, there are the following additional elements:
“an aerial vehicle; a global positioning system disposed on the aerial vehicle …; at least one sensor disposed on the aerial vehicle, the at least one sensor …”, and these additional elements were determined to be merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
“and a processor having addressable memory, the processor configured to:”, and these additional elements were determined as merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
“receive spatial locations of a plurality of known assets; and measure trace gas data on the at least two or more known assets included in each cluster during a flight associated with the flight plan of the aerial vehicle; wherein the plurality of known assets comprise at least one of: infrastructure and equipment that can potentially emit trace gasses, wherein each cluster comprises a closed-shape polygon, wherein each cluster is created so as to have an overlap with adjacent clusters, and wherein each cluster has a substantially similar area of coverage as each adjacent cluster”, and these additional elements were determined to be merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (data collection. The courts have identified these types of limitations as insufficient to qualify as ‘significantly more’ when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
Thus, when considered, individually and in combination, these additional elements fail to amount to ‘significantly more’.
Claims 15, 16 and 18
With regards to claims 15, 16 and 18, they recite further judicial exceptions of mental steps (for evaluating ‘the plurality of known assets …’, or evaluating ‘… the plurality of clusters …’) and do not recite any additional elements that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and do not recite any additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 27
With regards to claim 27, it is rejected under similar rationale as claim 14. It is noted that it additionally recites ‘a portable device’, however this limitation is merely considered reciting the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The courts have identified this type of limitation to be insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and also the courts have identified this type of limitation to be insufficient to amount to ‘significantly more’ than the judicial exception.
Claims 29-30
With regards to claims 29 and 30, they recite further judicial exceptions of mental steps (for ‘determining the plurality of clusters …’, and evaluating …’the plurality of clusters …’) and do not recite any additional elements that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and do not recite any additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/26/2025 have been fully considered and are persuasive in regards to the prior 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
Applicant’s arguments directed to allowability have been noted, but due to issues encountered upon further consideration of the claims for 14-16, 18, 27, 29 and 30, the above rejections are newly introduced with an explanation as to why the issues have encountered/identified.
The examiner recommends an interview to resolve the remaining issues and discuss potential language clarifications.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILSON W TSUI whose telephone number is (571)272-7596. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am -6 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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/WILSON W TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172